BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

Contention 1: Religous reasons. My opponent continues to try to discount this point, because Pro claims that this debate is not about religion, but the fact remains that once again that that is the main reason why it's illegal and why it's such a hot topic. Taking this out of the Gay Marriage debate makes it irrelivant. I extend my argument.My opponent has dropped my Hobby Lobby argument so extend that across the board.Contention 2: Civil UnionsIt does not contradict itself. I stated that the federal government should recognize Civil Unions in order to accept everyone. Marriages will still prosper, but federal governments will acknowledge who is joint on taxes and such via the Civil Unions. Not the Marriage. I also never said that religions should direct society. I merely stated that society should not merely dirrect religions. Legalization of Gay Marriage would be forcing the state over religion and my opponent dropped that argument that I have made last round so I also extend that across the board. My opponent also dropps my argument on how gay marriage supporters are devided so I also extend that across the board.My opponent says that gay rights are not the norm, but with my purposed solution compared to Pro's we will be making everyone, even the religious groups, happy with the change. Marriage will stay between a man and a women while the Federal government recognizes only Civil Unions. Thus there are no discrimination.Contention 3: Financial Gains from Civil UnionsMy opponent keeps disreguarding this contention, because he claims that they make the same profit, but I have provided federal government document analys that proves my point while Pro has yet to provide a source. I extend this point across the table.Contention 4: ReproductionThough they can indeed reproduce the fact is that a man+man=/= chile and women+women=/=child. You may go to the clinic and get certain 'things' to help, but the homosexual couple cannot reproduce without help vs. a heterosexual couple that can do it normally without any help.
Gay Marriage

If you scroll up and look at the category for this debate, you will see it is in the politics category and the the religion category. I stated that in the beginning because I wanted to make sure my opponent knew that. I'm debating this from a political standpoint as for the reason it should be legal. Things are not made illegal and legal depending on if religions find it right or not. Because then it would have to adhere to all religions, which wouldn't work. Which is why instead, laws are created for the common good. And a homosexual marriage benefits the common good just as much as a heterosexual relationship because both can start families with children who grow up to be good members of society.Nobody is forcing anyone to have a homosexual marriage, so everyone can still have their religious freedom to not have a homosexual marriage. "I agree for the most part that the state should recognize Civil Unions instead of Marriages, but the current standing is that the government recognizes marriage and that marriage, as I stated last round, is a religious institution and that due to the Separation of Church and state the Federal Government must stay out of the marriage industry." As I said this is not a religious debate. Government gives out marriage licenses and benefits to people who have one. Therefore, unless you wish to argue that government should not do this at all for anyone, then this contradicts itself.Marriage is indeed recognized in many religions, and many religions condemn homosexual activity of any kind. But religions are free to make any rules they would like, but that doesn't mean all the rules they make are beneficial for society nor are they laws. Homosexual marriage is not the norm. Just as back before women's rights was a thing, women working was not the norm. When people started saying women should have the right to work as they like, people were divided on the matter. It was a new concept and divided the people. Same with black rights. Whenever an issue divides the nation people are always cautious on how to proceed and just let things continue the way they are until someone stands up and says something. As I said, Civil Unions generate the same revenue per person as a marriage does. The fact that there were more in Hawaii than New York does not prove anything. And marriages are not supported by government because of the financial gain. They are supported for the common good of raising children which homosexuals can do just as well as a heterosexual couple. Which brings me to your next point.Homosexual couples can in fact, reproduce. It is in the same way that a heterosexual couple with an infertile member would reproduce. They obtain an egg or sperm from a donor. Also adoption is available and there are lots of homeless children who need to be adopted. The declining birth rate might actually be improved if homosexuals were allowed marriage as it would encourage them to start families of their own and provide them benefits to raise these children.
Gay Marriage

Contention 1: Homosexuals should not get married.This is a gay marriage debate. The only thing Pro said concerning Gay Marriage and religion in the first round is that if you take religion out of the equation Pro doesn't seem how it's bad. The fact is that I have brought up this point and weather or not Pro wants to debate it or not Gay Marriage is a predominately a Religious topic then political. I extend my arguments across the board. 1st amendment as of a few months ago the Supreme Court Released it's Ruling on Religious institutions. The Hobby Lobby Case has implemented that companies have religious freedom and can't be enforced to cover contraceptives. (http://www.tpnn.com...) You might be asking yourself now, what on Earth does this have to do with Gay Marriage. Well Ladies and gents it simple shows that the federal government cannot make people do things that can harm or interfere with their religion and that means Gay Marriage is now Unconstitutional. Since Marriage is actually an industry, because you can make a profit from it, that means gay marriage is illegal under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. (http://www.loc.gov...)Contention 2: Civil Unions vs. Gay Marriage I agree for the most part that the state should recognize Civil Unions instead of Marriages, but the current standing is that the government recognizes marriage and that marriage, as I stated last round, is a religious institution and that due to the Separation of Church and state the Federal Government must stay out of the marriage industry. Marriage is actually inclusive to other religions besides just Catholicism, Such as Islam and Judaism. In Islam they also condemn homosexual marriage. (http://www.billionbibles.org...) Many religious groups do not support Gay Marriage, but do support Civil Unions. Though with a majority of people supporting Gay Marriage the majority is actually split on what to do and how to do it while a ton of people who are against Gay Marriage, including Staunch Conservatives support Civil Unions. Contention 3: Finiancial Gains from Civil UnionsMy opponent is incorrect as the Document that I have provided is the Impacts of Civil Unions on Hawai`i’s Economy and Government. Not Gay Marriage. This has been tried in New York City, but the Finiancial Gains from Civil Unions were greater than that of the ones in New York. Contention 4: Marriage is for repopulation as well.We all know that homosexuals cannot reproduce. In an article by Time we can see that the world's population is actually decreasing not increasing. (http://newsfeed.time.com...) Doesn't look like you believe me. Many nations that have high female financial independence look at Europe. Their childbirth rates are actually lower than the death rates! The US has actually reached it's lowest all time as the US birth rates are falling. US birth rates are down 8%, foreign births are down 14%, and Mexican birth rates are down by more than 23%! (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) The Population of Earth is falling and we cannot let it die out.
Gay Marriage

For you first contention, as I stated before. This is not a religious debate. I'm speaking purely from a political standpoint as with religion it's just 'what god says goes' so there really is no argument there. As for your second contention, Civil Unions are extremely similar to marriages. It uses the mentality of 'Separate but equal'. Which is not true equality. I don't see the point of having the same thing but 2 different names. Why not just make them the same? If you don't want to call it marriage, then why not just change marriage to 'Civil Union' and then everyone has to civil union instead of a marriage. Then it's just the case of using a different word. Also, the data from your charts are outdated. Here are some more recent polls showing that over 50% now favor gay marriage. http://www.gallup.com... http://www.washingtonpost.com... As for your third contention, this revenue is not related to just civil unions. It is related to both civil unions and marriage. They both create revenue because they are both basically the same thing with a different name. Therefor if gay's were allowed marriage, the same financial gain would be produced. Except without the hassle and discrimination of separating the homosexuals from the heterosexuals.
Gay Marriage

Contention 1: Homosexuals should not get married.First let me give you a Bible verse that is against the Bible.Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God.Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."Now I state that homosexuals should not get married, because it is against many different religions and we can all agree that marriage is a religious Sacrament where that the church says it is between a man and a women. (http://www.americancatholic.org...) Now the US has the Separation of church and state, so my point is that the federal government should stay out of a religious affair as it has no right to intervene.Contention 2: Civil Unions are a better alternative to Gay marriageNow I know my opponent will probably bring up that I don't want two people that love each other together, but that is false. I as fact have two homosexual uncles, but am still against Gay Marriage. I instead support Civil Unions. What are Civil Unions you may ask? According to Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a Civil Union is a legal relationship between two people of the same sex that gives them some of the same rights and responsibilities that married people have. (http://www.merriam-webster.com...) Now reading this you may ask yourself why are you against gay marriage then? Simply for the reason stated in Contention 2. Let me show you it's effectiveness. New Jersey and Vermont both have legalized Civil Unions instead of Gay Marriage and they give you the same exact right as a married couple. Here's who can enter a Civil Union.the same sexover 18 years old (or meet requirements for an exception)not a party to another civil union, domestic partnership or marriagenot closely related to each other (for example, not an ancestor, descendant, sibling, niece, nephew, aunt or uncle)(http://www.lambdalegal.org...) Also according to Pew research Center, 57% of Americans approve of Civil Unions (with a 37% oppose) while 53% of Americans oppose Gay Marriage (37% favor).Here are the support numbers between men and women. Men Civil Unions: 54% for 40% against, women Civil Unions: 60% for 35% oppose, Men Gay Marriage: 34% for 59% oppose, Women Gay Marriage 43% for 48% against. (http://www.people-press.org...) Contention 3: Financial gain from Civil UnionsCivil Union produce tons of money. In Hawaii on one single day then generated, $1.4 million a day it also increased tourism to Hawaii by 43%! They have shown that if the current status quo continues then they will produce $2.2 million a year due to homosexuals visiting the state. Also in Hawaii they get health insurence. (http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...)
is donald trump under mind control

Emperor trump has started not acting like his god-like self lately. he is definitely under mind control. Trump is not an "Emperor" He's the president of the united states. He is not a "God" either he is a human being, and considering no one is perfect no one can have "God-like" qualities. Trump recently talked about 3rd world countries not ran by white people are superior. Trust me, theres nothing wrong with trump, he's himself.
Not voting can be a good thing.

Simply put, if you do not vote, your presence is not known through turn out, and no conclusion can be drawn from your absence. If you were to write yourself in, write in any candidate, or turn in an empty ballot in the election you don't like the candidates in, your presence becomes registered as a symbolic vote of no confidence. Your vote was cast, but not for the chosen candidates from the primaries. In numbers, this sends a message, but it still requires a cast ballot.
Not voting can be a good thing.

I ask for a simple argument that doesnt really on a predefined format. I do not care about formality and ask my opponent to simply and clearly state their arguments and rebuttals. Choosing to not vote is just as effective as voting. By this I mean choosing to not vote for the same reason that you would choose to vote. For example I chose to not vote in the US 2014 midterms. I did not like any of the canidates and did not feel as thought any of them deserved the positions they ran for. By not voting I have still contributed to the election. My actions acurately represent my stance and opinion. I would rather throw my vote away than help somebody gain a position I do not want them to have. As for those who claim that their "one vote" doesnt matter, and those who claim they dont care about politics, they are not the type of non voter I am trying to debate. Opponent must prove that my choice to not vote was an unsuccessful way to represent my opinion in the polls.
Resolved: The US government should militarize/weaponize space

Pro: "Militarization of space gives the US dominance over all war scenarios and thus mitigates war. Mitigating war outweighs all other negative impacts." "Militarizing space gives the US full hegemonic power over the global community. This ensures maximum protection of the US people." -> Both of your opening Round 1 statements are non-unique argument's then, by your definition. If anything they help my argument's stating that space is already militarized, and that the U.S. already has hegemonic power in space. There is no need to go any further then militarizing space by weaponizing it. Russia knows this and so does China. Both of whom you claim we need to protect ourselves from. They have both pushed for an international agreement banning space weapons, but their proposals have been rejected by the United States. The only reason that China tested an anti-satellite weapon (launched from the ground not from in space) and that Russia is also building anti-satellite technology is because of the threat from the U.S. 1985 and 2007 anti-satellite tests. Sure, if your from America you would like to arm and control space, but if your from any other country in the world you would not want to constantly feel under threat for your life and your costly technology. I see no problem with anti-satellite weapons from the U.S. or any other country. As long as they are stationed and launched from the ground in their territory. When you start putting weapons in space it doesn't make war impossible like you state. It makes more even more possible, because your deploying weapons! Pro: "..expanding US weaponization of space is necessary to A. Mitigate the space arms race with China and Russia", and "B. Make war close to impossible "American space dominance makes war structurally impossible" The U.S. are the ones creating a space arms race with China and Russia! By doing this they are making a war in space possible. China and Russia already don't want a space arms race, the U.S. are the ones disagreeing. If the U.S. wants to make war impossible they would not weaponize space, and they would sign an international agreement with the rest of the world. U.K., (The Independent 2009) http://www.independent.co.uk... Pro: "Geopolitical competition for military advantages and natural events will destroy our space control." Who is to say that the U.S. is to have control of space? You want your hegemonic status of power over the global community, you have it have it already and that's a luxury. Why not leave it at that. Russia and China will not send up weapons to space if the U.S. doesn't. If your worried about smaller hostile countries doing it then ban together, make an international agreement (like they tried to do already) and see to it that these countries do not succeed in doing it by means of ground, air, and sea defence. With the help of military and commercial satellite data of course.
Resolved: The US government should militarize/weaponize space

I chose this debate because it seems very challenging and I apologize in advance if i cannot put up a good arguement. I am here to learn an would appreciate any advice for how I can become a better debater. 1. Mitigates War Militarization of space does in some aspects mitigate war to an extent. Your arguement for militarizing space however is pointless, as space is already used for military purposes by the U. S. and has been for quite some time. I shall replace your "Militarization of space. .. " with "Weaponization of space. ." to give a good arguement. Weaponization of space may give dominance to war scenarios for the time being, but would not mitigate war. It would be percieved as threatening to other countries wether the weapons are offensive or defensive as there is no immediate threat from any rival power at this time. This percieved threat may then cause possible hostile countries to deploy anti-satellite weapons that could lead to a war in space or be used to harm commercial satellites. Which would be a negative impact on commercial satellites and people who rely on that techology. 2. U. S. Hegemony The U. S. having more satellites in orbit and making more trips into space then any other country already gives us hedgemonic power in space over the global community. We probably also use more military assets in space for terrestrial military operations then any other country. This gives us enough hegemonic power already. Any more and it will result in negative effects on the U. S. people. It would cost alot of money to Weaponize space that the taxpayers should not have to pay for if there is no immediate threat. It could also produce anti satellite weapons to be deployed by other countries leading to the destruction of tax dollar sattelites and commercial ones, showing vulnerability in space, reducing our hegemonic power and creating threat to commercial and private orginizations that we want to expand in space to give us more hegemonic power.
Resolved: The US government should militarize/weaponize space

Good luck to my future opponent. And lets have a great debate! Resolved: The US government should militarize/weaponize space 1. Mitigates War Militarization of space gives the US dominance over all war scenarios and thus mitigates war. Mitigating war outweighs all other negative impacts. 2. US Hegemony Militarizing space gives the US full hegemonic power over the global community. This ensures maximum protection of the US people. My following speeches will elaborate.
Socialization of the womb (e.g. anti-abortion laws).

I see my opponent forfeits. He is utterly incapable of justifying socialization of the womb when confronted with human rights and his lack of evidentiary basis (or indeed probably even a cogent definition) for his assertion that "all life is sacred," from the bacteria that infect your lungs to the fetus that trespasses on your womb to the lion that mauls you.
Socialization of the womb (e.g. anti-abortion laws).

First of all, your view of life is APPALLING and you should be ashamed of yourself and grow up, or face a life of misery, drug addiction, and death What am I talking about ? this reprehensible comment they are a thief, a parasite, a being incapable of respecting rights (without reciprocity the concept of rights defeats itself by rewarding those who do not act on it). To enslave a woman to a parasite is to spit in the eye of life. I see you are only 18, and are thus completely clueless I will only tell you this LIFE IS SACRED ALL LIFE IS SACRED IN PARTICULAR , HUMAN LIFE IT IS PRECIOUS Life Begins at Conception. Abortion is murder. Abortion ends a human life Most abortions are unneccessary, and cause IMMENSE pain and suffering to the woman that volutarily kills her baby. Witness the poor woman in England who recently hanged herself in grief after she aborted her twins after her criminal evil boyfiend said "I dont want them" to her, leaving her, and BREAKING HER SPIRIT. HE is responsible for her death AND the death of those children in my view. Whether the LAW punishes him or NOT , KARMA will be imposed by his action. YOU seem to think (and anyone who calls an unborn baby a thief a parasite obiously isnt thinking) that becuase you cant SEE the child, that she is IN WOMAN and is thus NOT a life, but "a thief, a parasite" I place 100% of the responsibility for the rape, enslavement , forced impregnantation, and accidental impregnantation of females on planet earth On MEN - EVIL STUPID MEN. MEN need to shape up, period. Your attitude about CHILDREN YOU MAY SOMEDAY MAKE is SCARY, young one. EVIL, really Think about this young one Women COULD eliminate MAN from planet earth, right now, if she wanted. Every single human being in history has been born of a woman, a mother. MANs FEAR of woman is this planets MAIN problem. It is at the heart of the problem in Islam. But I digress. YOU, young man, are RESPONSIBLE to treat women CORRECTLY and RESPECTFULLY throughout YOUR ENTIRE LIFE. Your mother, your sisters, your grandmother, your girlfriend, your daughters, your friends- all of them. you MUST be chivalrous to be a real MAN. anything less is NOT HONORABLE, MANLY, and VIRTUOUS. If you have this view, and a measure of control about yourself, and understand the menstrual cycle, you will not accidently impregnate a woman. and you will have healthy happy fulfilling marriage. The key to life. That is how we can end abortion. Men getting control over themselves, and having respect for women, and not raping and assaulting and controlling them. Or thinking that unborn children are "thiefs" and "parasites" SOLARMAN
Socialization of the womb (e.g. anti-abortion laws).

The woman's womb is not your property, nor the property of a fetus, it is solely hers. There is little evidence that a fetus can reason (reason being a necessary element for rights), and even if they could, the fact remains that if the woman does not want them there, they are a thief, a parasite, a being incapable of respecting rights (without reciprocity the concept of rights defeats itself by rewarding those who do not act on it). To enslave a woman to a parasite is to spit in the eye of life.
The Catholics will go 2 hell for believing in demon statues

You've still failed to argue WHY Catholics will go to Hell. There no proof that they believe in demon statues and if you ask any given Catholic, I'm sure they would deny your claim. < As well cath's are in the right place to belive in ....hold up hold up im not going to f'ing argue with a damn atheist...>> Then you forfeit the debate. I don't know why you posted it if you weren't serious about your claim. All you've done is waste your time, my time and the time of anyone who reads this debate. < http://youtube.com...; HA! So your tactic is to insult me then show me the path of the righteous? Hysterically funny. Thanks for nothing.