BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Same-Sex Marriage Should Not Be Legalized

P2: Same-sex couplings do not have a special link to children. C1 (from and 2): Therefore, same-sex couplings are not proper marriages. C2: Therefore, same-sex marriage should not be legalized. Defending premise 1. Marriage, as properly defined, is a comprehensive union between man and wife with a special link to children. As Girgis, et al, write, "The conjugal view of marriage has long informed the law -- along with the literature, art, philosophy, religion, and social practice -- of our civilization. .. It is a vision of marriage as a bodily as well as an emotional and spiritual bond, distinguished thus by its comprehensiveness, which is, like all love, effusive: flowing out into the wide sharing of family life and ahead to lifelong fidelity. In marriage, so understood, the world rests its hope and finds ultimate renewal. " [1]What makes it a comprehensive union? It is because the married life is a kind of community that pursues certain goods and acitivities. Marriage unifies two people in mind and body, and it unifies them with respect to procreation and family life. Marriage is a unique kind of relationship in that it is the only relationship that is enriched and enhanced by the presence of children, and is lacking if a marriage lacks children. No other relationship has this unique bond, and only the conjugal view of marriage best explains this fact about marriage. Defending premise 2. This premise is self-explanatory. Same-sex relationships, by the very nature of their relationship, cannot produce children naturally (that is, without artificial means). Defending Conclusion 1. Since same-sex couplings cannot naturally produce children, they are not proper marriages. This is something that virtually all cultures throughout human history, even cultures like the ancient Greeks who embraced homosexuality, recognized. The fight to legalize same-sex marriage is not a fight for marriage equality, but a fight to redefine the act of marriage itself. Defending Conclusion 2. The conclusion stands affirmed. The government has no interest in same-sex marriages since the state only has an interest in the rearing of children to enter the work force and contribute to society to replace the elderly members of society who leave the workforce. [1] Sherif Girgs, Ryan T. Anderson, and Robert P. George, What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense, Encounter Books, New York, NY, 2012, p. 1. Emphasis in original.
Agnostics Should Be Atheists By Default

>>Atheists believe they have proof God does not exist, while agnostics believe they have proof neither to the claim God is real or God is not real. This is patently false. I have never met an atheist, or "atheist," however you may be inclined to put it, who believed he had proof that god does not exist. Their arguments have always been that there is an utter lack of proof that god exists, and that much of what is observed can be explained by physical phenomena, and that it is more honest to assume that he doesn't exist because of this. >>Next he claims that agnostics do not believe that god exists or that he does not exist. This is just an incorrect statement. Agnostics believe that the forces that govern nature (god) cannot be understood by humans and that we will never be able to understand it. This presupposes the existence of an "unknowable" nature utterly apart from a rather well-quantified scientific nature. This is borderline theism, and therefore irrelevant to, or even beneath, this debate. The agnosticism that I refer to is a simple lack of desire to commit to either atheism or theism. It's a generic agnosticism applied to the atheist/theist debate rather than the euphemistic theism that you identify. >>He then goes on to say that for agnostics to be intellectually honest they need to declare themselves atheist. He fails to understand that by declaring themselves atheists they would be claiming something that they do not believe, which would not be intellectually honest. To say something in accordance with your beliefs is emotionally honest. To say that this equals intellectual honesty is intellectually dishonest. Intellectual honesty has nothing to do with this emotional honesty and everything to do with being in accordance with rationality, empiricism, and skepticism. Belief has nothing to do with any of this. I simply posit that in the absence of evidence for something, agnostics must assume that it does not exist in order to be in accordance with these intellectual ideals.
Agnostics Should Be Atheists By Default

I respectfully disagree with my opponant. He fails to really understand what causes people to declare themselves agnostics over atheists and vice versa. Atheists believe they have proof God does not exist, while agnostics believe they have proof neither to the claim God is real or God is not real. Next he claims that agnostics do not believe that god exists or that he does not exist. This is just an incorrect statement. Agnostics believe that the forces that govern nature (god) cannot be understood by humans and that we will never be able to understand it. He then goes on to say that for agnostics to be intellectually honest they need to declare themselves atheist. He fails to understand that by declaring themselves atheists they would be claiming something that they do not believe, which would not be intellectually honest.
Agnostics Should Be Atheists By Default

The most intellectually honest standpoint for anyone to have is skepticism. This is, perhaps, because the ungrounded assumption of the existence or truth of anything is the basis of all intellectual dishonesty. Therefore, when there is no proof of the existence of something, every scholarly principle forces the observer to assume that it does not exist. Agnostics do not believe that God exists, nor do they believe that he doesn't. They are uncertain, and many do not believe in much of the "proof" that he does exist. This is more or less the definition of agnosticism. Many of them believe this to be the intellectually honest route. What I contend is that because of their lack of proof and ostensible uncertainty, the true intellectually honest stance for them to take would be atheism.
Blacks would not be as violent if they were aware of the true violent crime stats.

What my opponent has said makes sense at first glance, however if you look into the issue it turns out this is not a logical conclusion.Unfortunately, phychology teaches was that facts aren't terribly relevant in convincing people. When someone is presented with facts that disagree with what they want to believe, or their worldview, they're often more likely to engage and believe in those fallacious beliefs. Because of this effect, simply knowing the facts is not enough to shape ones actions.(1) - https://rationalwiki.org...(2) - https://en.wikipedia.org...(3) - http://bigthink.com...(4) -
Who would be the best Republican candidate to be president.

Why didn't he have any other answer for his healthcare plan in the debate. When pressed on it he kept saying he'll just eliminate the healthcare state border so that competition can happen. When asked about the wall he said trade deficits and i'll make them. Whats he going to do start a war with Mexico? as far as his tax policy it's not much different from the other candidates. In the last debate the moderator pulled up the statistics and clearly showed he can't pay for half the stuff he wants because cutting the epa and the department of education isn't really a lot of money, terrible ideas by the way. I think it's fair game to question what he said about his stuff. If this guy is negotiating with world leaders he can't be self conscious about his freaking dong.
Who would be the best Republican candidate to be president.

Well first of all Trump University was not a scam. It had a 98% approval rating and the people who say it's now a 'scam' wrote report cards giving the classes and the course all A's. On immigration Eisenhower deported millions if people and no one questioned him. Why can't trump? He also has given many specifics to his policys like his trade policy and lowering the corporate tax. He also supports a simplified tax bracket and lower taxes for the middle class which in action you would see an explosion in citizen spending. Thus expanding the economy. John Kasich supports NAFTA etc. I would also question your pick of Bernie Sanders. He once supported a marginalized tax of 90% on the 1% which is unheard of since the 1950's. Bernie has repeatedly supported Black Lives Matters groups who are not only hypocrites in the way they conduct themselves but liars. They give false statistics on murder when the largest murder counts are Black on Black crime. Bernie is an unstable candidate and was once as a teenager a communist who actually marched with them in many parades. Trump's economic solutions will work as president but Bernies are inconceivable and impossible.
Who would be the best Republican candidate to be president.

I voted for sanders, as far as republicans I suppose I'd have to take John Kasich over Donald Trump. Donald Trump has bragged about the size of his dick on national television. Donald Trump evades policy questions when it comes to specifics. Donald Trump has advocated NSA spying and murdering civilians that are related to terrorists. Donald Trump wants to ban all Muslims coming into America even though terrorist attacks from right wing nuts have been more prevalent than isis. Colorado abortion clinic shooting, Oregon militia standoff, Dylan Roof killing black people in a church etc etc. Donald Trump loosely condones violence at his rallies. Donald Trump invited Hillary Clinton to his wedding, there are pictures for that. Donald Trump ripped off hundreds of people at Trump University. Donald Trump dodged the draft, called john McCain not a war hero because he was caught, then said if he told the military to do something "Trust me They'll do it". Donald Trump once questioned why poor people should hold public office based on their income. Donald Trump hired illegal immigrants, then threatened to deport 11 million immigrants including women, children, and hardworking people. Donald Trump said "the blacks love me". Donald Trump has been through 3 wives and once referenced that his daughter is sexy. Donald Trump is friends with Dennis Rodman. Donald Trump is a rich spoiled rotten prick. His wife hardly speaks English even though he bashes illegals. He is a walking talking hypocritical bigoted slob of a person. Yes, he says whats on his mind but that doesn't make it good. John Kasich balanced a budget, John Kasich isn't a child in the debates. The only thing on Kasich is he would definitely start a war but he's better than the three stooges.
Who would be the best Republican candidate to be president.

I first would like to say im all for Donald Trump. He has repeatedly proven that his Trade policy not only could work but would be effective. He has proposed a free trade policy with a big BUT. He wouldn't propose any tariffs unless a company decided to leave the USA for another company and in that case he would apply a 15% or higher tax on all their goods. These company's would think twice about leaving with another proposal he has stated by lowering the corporate tax and allowing small businesses to become more dynamic. He would also lower taxes on the middle class a ton by cutting the federal, death and obviously lowering the corporate tax. This would cause more citizens to spend more in the economy and grow small businesses. On healthcare Trump has repeatedly supported a plan that lowers premiums but still offers great quality. While creating competition Trump would provide healthcare for every person who is homeless or can't afford it. ITS NOT FREE FOR EVERYONE ONLY FOR THE HOMELESS OR DISABLED. Their would be multiple plans and no more monopolys for big corporations in certain states which raises premiums, kills the economy and leaves no competition. These reasons and many more show Donald Trump as a clear presidential pick in my eyes.
Who would be the best Republican candidate to be president.

Once again on health care he repeatedly has said to lower premiums and allow a more competetive enviorment. Obama care has raised premiums from 5%-45% it's a disaster. Trump is obviously not a great debater but his policy's are rock solid. You still have yet to refute any of my points. Also on illegal immigration he was right... all you have to do is get in a room tell them were in debt with them by millions of dollars and threaten them by saying we will pose a 15% or higher tariff on all of your goods like Trump has said. He has great detail on many of his policies like i have shown. When he was pressed on how "He can't pay for it" he can. If you cut the middle classes taxes, raise the people making over $300k while lowering the corporate taxes on business you inevitably make people spend more in the economy. They didn't factor ANY of that at all. Also that deduction of the corporate tax would bring company's to oyr country while keeping small businesses alive.
Voting should be allowed to those who pass a specialized government test.

I ask that all my arguments from Round 1 as I asked be extended down as my opponent has refuted neither. I ask when you go to vote that you remember that my opponent has forfeited Round 2 and 3 of this debate along with everything else I posted earlier. So since my opponent has forfeited more then half of the debate, has refuted none of my points, and everything else I hope it is a easy vote across the board for CON.
Voting should be allowed to those who pass a specialized government test.

I would just like to take this time to ask that the readers/voters extend my whole argument as my opponent has failed to come up with a response in a reasonable amount of time. My opponent has forfeited this round and I do hope he will return for Round 3 so we shall be able to continue this debate. If he does, I ask that you do remember his forfeit in this round. Once again, as my opponent has made no arguments in the second round due to a forfeit I simply ask if the reader would extend my entire argument down. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I strongly urge you to vote CON. - Robert
Voting should be allowed to those who pass a specialized government test.

First, may I say i appreciate whoever challenges me in my debate. Secondly, allow my to specify on my debate topic. I speak of a specialized government test, (for the sake of time i hope my opponent will agree to call it it SgT) by this I mean a test created by the us government or state government, that simply tests your politcal knowledge. All people who try to register to vote must take this exam. For example, a 42 year old may not pay attention to presidential debates, but feels since Obama is african-american that he will vote for John McCain. This man would simply not be allowed to vote (assuming he does not pass the exam due to his lack of political knowledge.) However, lets suppose a 15 year-old tries to keep up-to-date with presidential debates. He would take the standardized exam, and assuming he passes, would be able to vote regardless of his age. To sum up my opening argument, i will simply state that, a citizen of the United States of America of any age may vote as long as they pass a "SgT" provided by the United States Government. I wish my opponent luck, and i apologize, for i have not debated in a long while!!! Thank you!
Atheists can not accept the multi-verse theory

Pro never met my challenge I asked him to demonstrate that gods are possible beings. The multiverse theory would only imply that all POSSIBLE beings exist and pro never demonstrated that gods are possible beings. Things that will not exist in the multiverse: Square circles Married Bachelors any other logical contradiction Now, I hate the idea of logical possibility because all it really is is saying you can think of a thing being possible if you don't think too hard. Everything in the multiverse would be physically possible. As far as we know, water is non flammable, so it is unlikely that any universe will have flammable water. They might have something they call water that is flammable, but it will not be the substance we call water. Until someone demonstrates that gods are physically possible, they are basically just flammable water to me. Note: Yes, I have seen a river burn, but it was an oil spill on top of the water that was burning, the water itself never burned. In summary, pro forfeited almost every round and never met his burden of proof that gods are possible beings. If pro demonstrated that gods were possible beings, then yes, this modal method might work do show that atheists could not accept the multiverse, but neither he nor Alvin Plantinga(the philosopher who I think pro got his idea from) have demonstrated this. By the way, here is a link to the full modal argument that Pro was trying to argue for. http://www.philosophyofreligion.info...
Ice Hockey Hardest Sport to Play at the Professional Level.

Ice Hockey is by far the most difficult sport to master and to play at the professional level. Unlike most sports we enjoy today, a person can not simply put on his/her shoes and just go play ice hockey; he/she must learn to ice skate before hand. Ice skating is often the most overlooked facet of the game. So before you even decide, "Hey, I wanna play ice hockey!" You must learn to ice skate, and be very good at it because ice hockey can be a very dangerous game if you do not know how to skate. This brings me into my next point, the physical aspect of the game. Just as in football, ice hockey players are constantly placing their bodies on the line. Whether a defender is taking a blistering 90mph slap shot to the face (warning videos include blood and are gruesome) (http://www.youtube.com...) or you are on the wrong end of a skate blade (http://www.youtube.com...) you and your body are constantly being beaten and tested. Just imagine being on the ice, along the side boards, you are about to receive a pass, but you have 6'9 Zdeno Chara bearing down on you, possibly about to kill you. It's this aspect of the game that gets my most attention and makes me respect ice hockey players more. Going back to our passing situation. Having that huge defenseman on you would probably break your focus right? Well that isn't the case for NHL'rs. Because they get paid such large amounts of money they are expected to get that pass and still make a scoring chance out of it. There is a reason a hawk's wide open eyes are plastered onto most goalie masks around the league and that is because the goalie, and all other players on the ice, must be the epitamy of focus while on the ice. Because simple fundamentals of ice hockey require a lot of skill. Take passing, again. A player must have good hand eye coordination in order to keep the puck on his stick and under control, but then he must use that hand eye coordination in order to push the puck toward his teammate, most of the time while skating (remember skating isn't easy either). I can elaborate on more instances of hockey skills if you would like but I want to get into the debate before needing to elaborate if necessary. I am excited to see your response because this has always been a hot debate in the sports world and would like to see what sport you choose, and your respective points. Thanks!
Owners should spay every female owned dog unless contract is signed allowing them to breed

My opponents sources are trustworthy, and the facts stated are true, however, a major point is missing in his argument. He has not placed any strength in his argument. Sure, neutering is, physically, more efficient, and neutering may be faster, but there is no point to this statement. So what if the procedure takes longer? What's so bad about that? Now, I will not deny that neutering males may be a more efficient and quick process, and it will disenable that particular male dog to impregnate any female dog, however, the risks are still high of females to be bred by stray male dogs that are not yet fixed, again, causing unwanted overpopulation of stray dogs. Female dogs are, undeniably, at lower risk of becoming pregnant if every owned male dog is neutered, but the problem is not completely gone. Spaying female dogs will completely abolish impregnation of owned female dogs, making spaying the more desirable choice in reducing canine population. Now, I will not deny that either process is efficient and valid, and non-fixed owned male dogs are still likely to impregnate female stray dogs, but it will be impossible for them to impregnate ( even if they try) an owned female dog. An owner will deal with their pregnant dog in three major ways: [1]Decide that she does not want to have a pregnant dog and put her dog's life at risk, therefore spaying the dog after the eggs have been fertilized, killing completely innocent puppies [2] Deal with their dogs pregnancy recklessly and either A) abandon the dog, or B) Not prepare for the puppies arrival putting more dogs onto the streets. [3] Take it calmly and follow through with the pregnancy carefully. The most likely of the 3 to be chosen by humans is either [1] or [2]. Therefore, spaying is the more desirable choice.
Owners should spay every female owned dog unless contract is signed allowing them to breed

I accept this challenge based on the understanding that my opponent will be arguing for the mandatory spaying of female dogs. The only exception being a government "contract" that will allow breeders to be exempt from this law. I would first like to point out that my opponent has failed to provide a source for the claim, "Spaying the dog will also provide much better health for the dog." The key word here is "better." Spaying dogs actually provides more health risks than it does benefits[4], so it should only be undertaken if absolutely necessary.Now, onto my arguments. Argument 1P1: Spaying and Neutering are both forms of controlling the canine population.P2: Neutering is less dangerous, and more efficient than spaying. C: Mandatory neutering is preferable to mandatory spaying.P1: Spaying is the removal of the ovaries and uterus of a female dog[1]. Neutering, or an Orchectomy, is the surgical removal of the testicles of a male dog[2]. Both of these medical procedures are performed with the intention of rendering the canine unable to breed. P2: Spaying a dog involves abdominal surgery to remove the ovaries and uterus. The process is lengthy, bloody, and the recovery is somewhat slow. Stitches on the outside will need to be removed in 7-10 days[1]. On the other hand, we have neutering. The neutering of a male dog is a quick and efficient process. Using a laser as opposed to a scalpel blade, the bleeding is significantly reduced and the recovery time is substantially lowered[3]. Additionally, no stitches are required for the healing process. C: Neutering and spaying canines are both performed for the same purpose: To reduce the canine population. Neutering is safer and more efficient than spaying. Therefore, mandatory neutering is the preferable procedure. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Sources1) http://www.lbah.com...;(WARNING: Contains graphic images of actual surgery)2)http://www.biology-online.org...3)http://www.lbah.com...;(WARNING: Contains graphic images of actual surgery)4)http://www.naiaonline.org...