BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay 'marriage' and civil union are forms of legal political corruption

"You claim that gay marriage is not in the public interest, yet the majority of the public (1) supports it."Public interest has nothing to do with the majority of the public but with the welfare or well-being of the general public.(1) Majority of the public is relevant in a democratic decision-making process."While private politicians are certainly among those who support gay marriage, by your argument any law passed represents corruption."No, I clearly stated the following: "the pursuit of private interests with public money is called corruption". Ergo, any law pursuing private interests with public money represents corruption. Since homosexual union is legally recognized and benefited with public money, although this union is unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public(public interest), and as such, it belongs to the category of unions that are of private importance only, this represents the pursuit of private interests with public money - or in short - corruption."You fail to explain how gay marriage is not in the public good, so I clicked over to the comments, where you stated that gay marriage wasn't in the public interest because only heterosexual marriages produce children."Again no. Gay marriage - or public recognition of homosexual union -is not in the public interest because this union is unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public. The same as other types of romantic, economical, spiritual or sibling unions, in which people live together, such as: polygamous, polyandrous, roommates, benedictine nuns, unmarried sisters. They are not of general public concern because this types of unions are per se unable to produce effects that are beneficial to the general public."Yet this makes zero sense as a condemnation of gay marriage; it's not like gay people would be having kids if gay marriage was ILLegal. In fact, gay marriage can help alleviate the problem of heterosexual marriages that don't work and leave children in the foster home system, since gay couples adopt much more regularly and tend to be better parents than heterosexual couples (2). Anyway, only 3.8% of Americans identify as LGBTQ, and whether or not they have kids has very little effect on the population anyway." Various arrangements in which people live together, such as polygamous, polyandrous, roommates, benedictine nuns, unmarried sisters... can also "help alleviate the problem of heterosexual marriages that don't work and leave children in the foster home system". Nevertheless, they are not entitled neither to special public and legal recognition nor to taxpayer funded benefits. The reason is simple: mimicking some aspects of heterosexual union is not valid reason to treat every union where people live together as heterosexual union."Unless you're some kind of a spread-the-race nationalist, I can't see why this argument holds water."Ad hominem - attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument.(2) (1) https://en.wikipedia.org...(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...
Gay 'marriage' and civil union are forms of legal political corruption

You claim that gay marriage is not in the public interest, yet the majority of the public (1) supports it. While private politicians are certainly among those who support gay marriage, by your argument any law passed represents corruption. You fail to explain how gay marriage is not in the public good, so I clicked over to the comments, where you stated that gay marriage wasn't in the public interest because only heterosexual marriages produce children. Yet this makes zero sense as a condemnation of gay marriage; it's not like gay people would be having kids if gay marriage was ILLegal. In fact, gay marriage can help alleviate the problem of heterosexual marriages that don't work and leave children in the foster home system, since gay couples adopt much more regularly and tend to be better parents than heterosexual couples (2). Anyway, only 3.8% of Americans identify as LGBTQ, and whether or not they have kids has very little effect on the population anyway. Unless you're some kind of a spread-the-race nationalist, I can't see why this argument holds water. To summarize, you fail to explain why gay marriage does not represent the public interest, and I had to dig through the comments to find a specific point to rebut. 1. http://www.pewforum.org... 2. http://www.medicaldaily.com...
Gay 'marriage' and civil union are forms of legal political corruption

Legal doctrine dictates that every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. Since taxation is in principle an interference with that right, because it deprives the person concerned of a possession, namely the amount of money which must be paid, government or public spending must be objectively justified by the public interests. Public interests and its equivalents general interests and public good, refers to some collective good which superimposes itself over private interests and is defined as the welfare or well-being of the general public. Government policy that legally recognizes and benefits homosexual union with public money, either in the form of civil union or in the form of gay marriage, is not based of public, but on private interest. As such, it represents the pursuit of private interests with public money. Additionally, it represents the pursuit of private ideology of political elites with public or taxpayers' money. Since the pursuit of private interests with public money is called corruption, gay 'marriage' and civil union are forms of legal political corruption.
Gay 'marriage' and civil union are forms of legal political corruption

"Nobody decides what issues are of public interest" Then why do you say that gay marriage is not in the public interest, while I say that it is? I agree that fixing the environment definitely is, but if we don't agree, then public interest here is not a given, but rather what the public says the interest is, since neither you nor I can actually state definitively the effects of gay marriage on the economy/society/whatever of the USA. And the public says that their interest is in allowing gay marriage. If you continue, then, to state that the public interest is not in gay marriage, then you state that you know better than the American people what's good for them, which, considering that you're on debate.org and not in Congress or the White House, you do not. You seem to take it for granted that gay marriage does not produce beneficial effects, given your robotic restatement of that claim and your apparent confusion when I try to challenge it. So I need to explain this: I do not approve of giving funding to things that do not benefit the United States. I agree with you there. But I think that gay marriage benefits the United States. THAT'S what I'm arguing. In debates, I bow to the old Wendy's commercial and, looking at my opponent's argument, ask "WHERE'S THE BEEF?" In your argument, it seems to be the long list of "premises" that blights the whole center. You seem to claim that children raised by gay parents are less exposed to different thinking. But this is untrue; if you had read my first statement, you would know that children raised by gay parents not only perform at the same level as children raised by straight parents, but actually do better very regularly. So I preempted your argument, but you stated it anyway. I, unlike you, am not basing my argument off of dictionary definitions. You know perfectly well what I meant. And children are not always the product of heterosexual unions. You claimed that surrogates and gay parents represented a het relationship, but this is nonsensical; while certainly the surrogate is aiding in the production of children, they have no relationship with said children. And no gay parent would want to marry a surrogate. And I'm confused by your argument for my next point. You say that the public shouldn't fund gay marriage, but why should gay people fund straight marriage? Are they wrong? Do they need to be punished? And your proposal that a civil rights organization give out marriage certificates is ridiculous. An organization cannot guarantee shared taxes or hospital visitation. The point of gay marriage is to give gay people the same rights as straight people, which private organizations can't guarantee. If straight people are allowed to marry, gay people should be too, since they also produce beneficial effects on society. Vote for happiness and freedom!
Gay 'marriage' and civil union are forms of legal political corruption

"Public interest has nothing to do with the majority of the public but with the welfare or well-being of the general public.(1) Majority of the public is relevant in a democratic decision-making process." So does America participate in a democratic decision-making process, or not? If it does, I think it makes sense that the majority of the public should have some say. You also seemingly deny that the opinion of the majority of the public matters, by stating that it is not part of the public interest. Do politicians know what the people want better than they themselves do? And speaking of those same politicians, you state that gay marriage is "not in the public interest" and any politician supporting it is corrupt. However, you do not state any specific reason why gay marriage is "not in the public interest" other than that it doesn't produce children (rebutted below), so I take "the public interest" to mean "things that I agree with." While you are an important part of the democratic process, you are not the only part, and a larger part does not agree with you than does. I don't get your third point. You state that heterosexual unions are in the public interest, while homosexual unions are not. I would agree with you that homosexual unions do not always produce children (though they can, through surrogates). The reason for my spread-the-race jibe, on the other hand, was that marriage is not always to produce children. It also makes people happy, and I doubt even you would say that gay people don't deserve to be happy. And being surrounded by happy people makes everybody happier. And happy people are good workers. Isn't a happy population at least as productive as a large one? Also, like I said, gay people do not generally have children if they can't get married. You actually never enumerated the "positive effects" that het marriage creates and gay marriage does not. You keep referencing the "public interest." What public is this, and why are they interested in banning love and letting roommates and nuns adopt children together?
Northern Cyprus Should Be Recognized

Hello! I am looking forward to debating with you. I'll start off with this, The Northerners are the ones who wanted to separate in the first place. When Turkish troops invaded the northern part of Cyprus and erected a border. They were met with cheers from people of Turkish decent. The only nation who acknowledge the northern state of Cyprus is turkey, The invaders. Who gets advantages from northern Cyprus if the UN acknowledges northern turkey as a independent state? Turkey. They get to move many troops into Cyprus. Then a full on invasion of Cyprus could occur. The southern part of Cyprus doesn't want to reunite for their own protection. As long as UN Peacekeepers are stationed there, Turkey can't invade. As soon as we Acknowledge Northern Cyprus as a independent state we leave the rest of Cyprus to the fate of whatever the Turkish government wants. That is why I must declare we must not acknowledge Northern Cyprus an independent state. Source: https://en. Wikipedia. Org/wiki/Cyprus_dispute
Northern Cyprus Should Be Recognized

Northern Cyprus itself was, Originally, A form of Turkish clout on the island of Cyprus- however, This was in response to an explicitly ethnonationalist coup on the island, And such a thing is surely unlikely to treat minorities well in any way (and, In fact, The short-lived regime did not. ) The nation as it stands is currently the more tolerant part of Cyprus, Having voted to unite the island as the Republic of Cyprus votes to keep the island disunited, Leaving Northern Cyprus high and dry. As it is, The lack of recognition does nothing but harm their economy, Trade, And the resources available to their citizens. Despite their best wishes, The country is here to stay, And to recognize it is the only way to offer security to their people.
should we give free health care

gggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg
Mulan is a better femininist Disney movie than Brave

Alright. . Mulan is not a better feminist then Brave. Mulan didn't join the military because she felt justified to do so. She did is so her father (whom is very old) didn't have to go in. She did it to save her life because she loved her father. She didn't go into the military because she felt equality was a problem. she did it for her father. On the other hand Meridith from brave is more of a feminist because she didn't want to marry any man. She felt as though she was still too young to marry anyone. She was even into all of the boy stuff like archery and hunting though her mom didn't really like it. What makes Meridith more of a feminist is because she didn't want to marry a man, she also stood up for her self by showing she doesn't need a man to take care of her.
Story Battle(1)

Mirror ImageOn Christmas Eve, Nathan thought it would be nice to buy his wife a little gift for the next day. Always short of money, he thought long and hard about what that present might be. Unable to decide, Nathan entered Deben Haven's and in the cosmetics section he asked the salesgirl, "How about some perfume?" She showed him a bottle costing $75."Too expensive" muttered Nathan. The young lady returned with a smaller bottle for $50. "Oh dear, still far too much" Nathan groused. Growing rather annoyed at Nathan's meanness, the sales girl brought out a tiny $10 bottle and offered it to him. Nathan became really agitated, "What I mean is, I'd like to see something really cheap" he whined, So the sales girl handed him a mirror.
The Fine-Tuning Argument For Design Succeeds

I have three things to say. 1) You are correct that I seem to have violated your rules of conduct, but I except the consequences"mainly because I think it is unreasonable for an instigator of an argument to force the opposition to provide the brickwork when the topic is selected and potentially prepared for by the instigator. Additionally, I know that you will take this argument where you have planned it to go, so my opening argument will likely be a waste of time and effort and will allow you to gain the upper-hand with the final concluding statement. 2) You have stated in the summary of the topic that your "job is to argue for sufficient doubt with regards to the truth of the premises." I do not believe that just because there is some potential that the universe is a "black-hole generator" means that there is reasonable evidence for this. If this is your argument then I feel like a lot of evidence will be needed. Furthermore, just because our universe happens to be spectacular conditions to generate black-holes, does not mean this was the purposeful effect. You could say the same thing in another sense" such contains the perfect criteria to produce tulips, so therefore the universe is a tulip-generator. This leads me to my third point. 3) The fact the universe is a black-hole generator or a tulip-generator or an iphone-generator is insignificant. Even if I were to agree that the universe's parameters and constants are perfect for black-hole generation, and that"in fact"the constants and parameters needed to be exactly as they are for the universe to be a black-hole generator, this does not answer the question of how/why. How did the universe gain the perfect fine-tuning to become the ultimate black-hole generator, and why did the universe become a black-hole generator (as well as a tulip-generator and iphone-generator and life-generator)? It still appears as if intelligent design is the only rationale explanation.
The Fine-Tuning Argument For Design Succeeds

The fine-tuning of the universe (by fine-tuning I mean that which involves strictly the different parameters and physical constants, not about designed life versus Darwinism) for the existence of intelligent life is often posited as a reason to infer a designer of the initial conditions of the univserse. The argument is as follows: P1: The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design P2: The fine-tuning of the universe is not due to physical necessity or chance C: Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design The argument is valid, so the job of my opponent will be to argue that the premises are true, and my job is to argue for sufficient doubt with regards to the truth of the premises. The first round will be for Pro's opening argument. In order to ensure we both get the same amount of rounds to debate, in the last round, my opponent will only put "...".
The Fine-Tuning Argument For Design Succeeds

Here's the problem that I'm seeing"and con has picked up on this as well. There is a clear discrepancy between what exactly "fine-tuning" refers to. In my viewpoint, fine-tuning is a verb that simply means "to change to specific exact parameters" (in other words, to tune with fine precision). I do not presuppose a designer. For example, water running through a rock-bed would eventually, over many many years, cause erosion"resulting in a "finely-tuned" (aka specifically shaped) gorge"no intelligent design needed. With that being said, I do see that con has used a slightly different definition, and this is where I think his folly lies. Instead of the verb"fine-tuning" which is used in the original argument, he has actually used it as a noun, interpreting it as"finely-tuned." In other words, the argument would be rewritten as such: P1: The universe IS FINElY-TUNED (or has reached a state with the given parameters) because of either physical necessity, chance, or design. ........ In this case, I would completely agree with Con that the universe must logically be in this state or else it wouldn't be in this state but it is in this state (Logical Necessity). However, this has absolutely nothing to do with the verb "fine-tuning" when applied to the universe and has nothing to do with physical necessity, chance, or design. In conclusion, most of this debate was a waste of time since Con did not realize that "fine-tuning" is different than "is finely-tuned." This also explains why con considers the "Fine-tuning" argument to be obviously false when in fact it is as sound as thunder.
Climate change

I believe that it is real,you don't? Global warming is impacting the human race. More people are dieing because of climate. According to this article, https://www.epa.gov... says,"These changes will lead to an increase in heat-related deaths in the United States"reaching as much as thousands to tens of thousands of additional deaths each year by the end of the century during summer months." It is also affecting our electricity bills. According to this article,https://www.epa.gov... a warmer climate, Americans will use more electricity for air conditioning."
In "The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess"...

And yes, I agree, there are a few spoilers in this debate. Contention 1-: Ordona is not a part of Hyrule I will agree that Ordona is not always considered a part of Hyrule, but that is merely because it was recently annexed into Hyrule [1]. If it wasn't a part of Hyrule, it wouldn't exactly be a province, now, would it? To directly counter my opponent's points: Twilight never successfully covers the Ordona Province, but an attempt was made to do so. It was stopped by Link, who attacked the Shadow Beast that led the charge. That is why there is a portal above Ordon Spring, after all. It should be noted that the City in the Sky, the Desert Province, and the Peak Province weren't covered by twilight, either, and yet these three areas contain three of the four shards of the Mirror of Twilight. Wouldn't it make sense, then, for the final shard to be located in the only other area not fully taken by twilight, the Ordona Province? "Hyrule proper" refers to the original area of Hyrule before the Ordona Province was annexed. In Coro's case, he quite likely hasn't ever seen anybody from anywhere beyond Hyrule, so for him to say, "Woah, a Hylian! " would seem as redundant as saying, "Woah, a person! " Rusl also refers to Hyrule proper as Hyrule. He was possibly growing up during the annexation, allowing him to make a distinction. Finally, the in-game map of Hyrule includes the Ordona Province, which is blatant evidence that the Ordona Province is part of Hyrule. Contention 1+: The Temples My opponent questions the existence of a temple in an area outside of Hyrule. However, one temple, the City in the Sky, is far above the Sages, and yet it also houses a shard. The Eldin Province and the Layanru Province, two main provinces of Hyrule, house no mirror shards; why have Faron Province as an exception. My opponent makes no argument against the visual appeal of having a single temple in every province. Contention 2+: The Swords Yes, the Master Sword is a magical Hyrulian artifact an all. However, we know that the Ordona Province is a part of Hyrule. Plus, if the Sages truly wanted to hide the Master Sword so that only the Hero would find it, it would make sense to hide it in an area outside of Hyrule proper. It would also make sense to put it in the same province as the Hero himself. Conclusion: My opponent's sole contention, as well as his rebuttals to my own contentions, rely on the false premise that the Ordona Province is not a part of Hyrule. I have shown this premise to be false; my opponent now has nothing to go on. Good luck, Korashk, with your response. [1] . http://zelda.wikia.com...