BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, up until now. But that is completely wrong, and it is the fault of our society, not the intervention of any divine power or any biological concern. In fact, your statement that same-gender relationships cannot reproduce is transphobic by definition. Therefore, the first question I pose to you is this: why do you refuse to acknowledge the presence of trans people? I hope you will answer this in our next response. I acknowledge that this is the main area for arguments, not rebuttals, but it truly bothers me. The problem involving heterosexuality being the norm is the fault of our society. We push heterosexuality onto our children from an early age, for one thing. Such an example is young children being called "flirts" and "ladies' men" from early ages, thus not only ingraining heteronormative ideas, but also hypersexualizing them. I also wish to bring up that homosexuality is present in over 100 species, but homophobia is only present in one: humans. And as such, I ask you: which is more unnatural? Marriage was not constructed by any divine force, but by humans themselves.
Gay Marriage

:) So, I would like to start out by saying that calling something marriage does not make it marriage. Marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman which is by its nature ordered toward the procreation and education of children and the unity and wellbeing of the spouses. The promoters of same-sex "marriage" propose something entirely different. They propose the union between two men or two women. This denies the self-evident biological, physiological, and psychological differences between men and women which find their complementarity in marriage. It also denies the specific primary purpose of marriage: the perpetuation of the human race and the raising of children. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It is a relationship rooted in human nature and thus governed by natural law. Natural law"s most elementary precept is that "good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided. " By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act"s purpose. Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality. Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always. Saint Paul taught in the Epistle to the Romans that the natural law is inscribed on the heart of every man. (Rom. 2:14-15) It is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex "marriage. " A child of a same-sex "marriage" will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model. Same-sex "marriage" ignores a child"s best interests. Two entirely different things cannot be considered the same thing Citations: . http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...
Resolved: Information about contraceptives should be included in sex education classes.

(2) A forfeit in one, multiple, and/or any of the rounds constitutes a loss in the conduct point. (3) No trolling or semantics arguments. Both constitute automatic losses in the debate. (4) Presentation of new evidence is permissible only in the third round of the debate. Any new evidence presented in any of the other rounds is ignorable. Structure of the Debate (1) Acceptance of the resolution (2) Presentation of arguments. No rebuttals (3) Rebuttals (4) Rebuttals (5) Closing rebuttals or arguments
Resolved: This house prefers utilitarianism.

If you've made it to this point, you've done some major scrolling to get here. I would like to thank you on behalf of both the government and the opposition for taking the time to read through our debate. REBUTTAL Opp claims Kant is okay with lying in certain situations because of 'consistently will'. Kant is never okay with lying. Kant believed every man to be his own moral agent. The opp's attempt to refute Kant's belief with a different deontology maxim is just more evidence of how fallible deontology is. Opp claims setting a bad example is not a consequence. I disagree. Jake may have just created more drunk drivers. Jake's friends and neighbors who see him drunk drive will think less of him. There are negative consequences for Jake. SUM UP I. Flexibility Despite what the opp claims, they too see that utilitarianism is flexible. They often complained how utilitarianism in its extreme could be used to justify murder. Allowing questionable means to achieve a greater end is flexibility. Utilitarianism is preferable because it is flexible. II. Focused Lack of opp rebuttal on this point gives it to the government. Utilitarianism is preferable because it is focused. III. Cultural Relativity Opp claims this is a horrible thing, but it isn't. Cultural relativity on the whole prevents the world from becoming uniform and fallible in that uniformity. There is no one correct morality. Utilitarianism is preferable because it is adaptable to different value systems. A. Jake and Sally Sally is a drunk driver that killed someone. Jake is a drunk driver that has yet to kill anyone. Deontology would blame Sally and Jake equally. Utilitarianism blames Sally more than Jake. If you believe killing someone is worse than not killing someone, you prefer utilitarianism. B. “Rule Utilitarianism” Opp's “experience machine” and “medical dilemma” examples were easily dismissed by rule utilitarianism. Opp claims overlap. I claim – so what? Opp gave extreme examples meant to crush utilitarianism, only to discover them easily brushed off. Utilitarianism is preferable because even these unrealistic examples did it no damage. C. “Big Picture is too Hard” Opp's new argument is that it would be too hard for people to think about the big picture and that they need an 'in the moment' philosophy like deontology. Fine. If you are so small minded that you cannot imagine the consequences, if you are so selfish that you believe you are just your own moral agent, then give in to deontology. Utilitarianism is preferable because it cares about the big picture. If you care about the greater good, if you believe that there are circumstances where killing is justified, then you prefer utilitarianism. If you would never lie no matter the circumstance, if you believe all killing is wrong, then you prefer deontology. As you can see, utilitarianism is preferable. Vote PRO! Check comments for Points of Order. Another debate, Manastacious?
Resolved: This house prefers utilitarianism.

I would like this round to be in the Parliamentary style. The Proponent of the resolution should be referred to as the Government and the Con shall be referred to as the Opposition. Further, the Government will be given the duty of defining the terms of the resolution and this house. For those who wish to vote on the resulting debate, please keep in mind that you should evaluate the round through the lens of the house. Round Breakdown will be as follows: R1: Acceptance and Presentation of the Government Case R2: Opposition Constructive 1 and Government Constructive R3: Opposition Constructive 2 and Government Rebuttal R4: Points of Order it should be noted that no new arguments should be voted on or considered in the Government's rebuttal. That is a chance for the Government to quickly sum up the arguments already made in the round. As such, the Government should be limited to 3,000 characters for the rebuttal. if the Government proponent goes over 3,000 characters (in a fashion that defies the spirit of the rule--about 50 words or so) they should be given a penalty loss. The fourth round should, for the most part be left blank. If, for some reason, the Opposition believes that there have been new arguments made in the Government's rebuttal, they will be allowed to point those objections out by giving a quotation of the new argument and a brief explanation (no more than 3 sentences) as to why they believe it is a new argument. The final speech in the last round will give the Government the opportunity to respond briefly (no more than 3 sentences) to the objections. Judges will be allowed to evaluate the Points of Order at their own discretion as they see fit. All other argumentation in the fourth round is to be forbidden upon penalty of disciplinary loss (again subject to the judges). I really look forward to the debate! Get creative with it. As long as you define the terms within reason, we should have no problem. I look forward to this, it should be a large amount of fun. Do not forget to post the Government's constructive in the next speech!
Social Media Should Be Banned For Children Under The Age Of 18

I know about children under the age of 18. They don't care about the news. You don't only learn how to do things on social media. Have you ever heard of websites and Google images? I can get easily inspired by those. Is it really necessary for them to be exposed to more new products? Children already view 40,000 ads a year. They are exposed to many new products and they don't need to be exposed to more. Doctors have found that social media can lead to anxiety and low self esteem. When children use social media they can be bombarded with mean things said by people they may or may not use. Not to mention, many children ignore and stalk each other. This should not be a problem. It does not have to be either. All we have to do is ban social media for children under the age of 18. It's that simple.
Social Media Should Be Banned For Children Under The Age Of 18

Social media shouldn't be banned for children under the age of 18 because social media can give children tips about ways to live and tutorials on how to do certain things. Also, using social media, you can find out about news 10x faster than any other media. Children can also use social media to find out about new game releases and new products. For these reasons I do not think social media should be banned for children under the age of 18.
Social Media Should Be Banned For Children Under The Age Of 18

First of all, that has barely anything to do with the question. It is about children using social media not people in general. That statistic is wrong, 5 billion people use Face Book. That does not even include any other social media sites. The fact that the future is going to be full of only connecting over the screen is even a better reason that social media should be banned for children under the age of 18. If we make a change now children will develop better habits and get off their electronics. It would take just as much time to text a friend that you are free to hang then make it available for the whole world to see. I have read countless stories about children who's lives have been destroyed and even have committed suicide because of social networking.
Social Media Should Be Banned For Children Under The Age Of 18

Social media shouldn't be banned, there are 2.55 billion users using social media as it is. it is said that %90 of the futures technology will be either unsocial (aka over a type of social media and/or technologize equipment). Social media can introduce people to new experiences such as the Oculus Rift and Project Morpheus. People can use social media to contact their friends if they have no time to call and/or meet the other in person. Social media can also be used as a quick and easy way to show if your available or unavailable during the day.
Social Media Should Be Banned For Children Under The Age Of 18

Social media should be banned for children under the age of 18. You said that it helps children that have bad social skills but that is really where the problem starts. Social media stops children from connecting with people in person and developing those important social skills. Did you know that over 5 million kids under the age of 10 are on Face book. No one would have thought it would be starting that young but hey it is. Also there are about 4 billion people in the world that use Face book. There are 3.5 billion people that use a tooth brush. What's more important, dental hygiene or social media? Looks like people have chosen the one thing that could not become a painful physical problem for them. If you think that you can ask some company a question and they will answer you on Face book you are only 30% right. 70% of the time the company will not answer you. So, now you know the truth. While what their mom's may threaten isn't proved. As in the classic "that's going to rot your brain." Children need to get outside and exercise and have fun with their REAL friends, not just people that post pictures they like. Children under the age of 18 already have plenty of technology skills and don't need anymore. There are kids under the age of 10 that design apps. Social media will not give you real friends. You have to actually meet in person and hang out to get that kind of bond. Not to mention that it is more polite and family-like to actually call your family members. Just because there is social media doesn't our phones don't call people anymore.
Social Media Should Be Banned For Children Under The Age Of 18

Social media shouldn't be banned for children under the age of 18 because social media give children/teens a chance to gain technology skills and gives children/teens a chance to collaborate with friends online with social media. Social media can give children/teens social skills if the child and/or teen has trouble with face to face communication skills. Social media can also give a chance to show achievements and awards that he or she has earned during their lifetime. Social media can also give you a chance to find old friends and/or get you into contact with family members you have not been able to be in touch with for a while.
Factory Farming Animals is Immoral

I will accept that we know what "factory farming" is, so I won't quibble over its definition. However, there are a few parametric considerations. One is that a position specifically against factory farming probably doesn't object to farming of animals for use as food in general. Otherwise, it would argue this broader position. Another is the question of who or what can be a moral agent, and who or what can enjoy rights. Then there is the philisophical framework to be adopted: Kant, Mills, Rawls, etc.Since you're proving, you get to choose these parameters of course. After you've adopted an ethics arena, I'll assume that you plan to stick with it and not switch to an alternative arena. I may have to consult at a library since I don't have a philosophy background, so bear with me if it takes me up to two days to answer.Regards,
The Congress should abolish the Federal Reserve:

1. Google Docs are not a violation of conduct. 2. I will argue that the Federal Reserve serves no practical function, is destructrive to the US economy, and is unconstitutional. 3. My opponent must argue that the Fed serves a practical purpose that cannot be better acheived by some other system. 4. No "K" or "Kritiks"5. don't argue outside of the debate, we are argue=ing the Federal Reserve, nothing else.
Resolved: High school Public Forum Debate resolutions should not confront sensitive religious issues

For those who don't know, Public Forum is a debate format [1] that is often used in the NFL, or National Forensic League [2]. Here [3] you can see the origin of this topic. Originally, the November topic of debate was a resolution regarding whether or not the ground zero mosque should be built. Within 24 hours, they recalled the topic because it was controversial and involved religion. The ground zero mosque is a religious issue inasmuch as the people who attacked it were all non-Muslim; meanwhile, proponents of the mosque were both Muslims and non-Muslims, which throws a twist onto the topic. It has a lot to do with an understanding of society, politics, and reality. In my opinion, topics that involve sensitive religious issues should be debated for the purpose of enlightening society and bringing new viewpoints to the table that have yet to be tasted by the average American religious connoisseur. I'll provide two justifications for addressing religion in PF debate. The first specific reason for allowing Public Forum topics to "confront" sensitive religious issues, assuming we have no conflicts in the denotations of the resolution, is that the general American populous is rather unintelligent [4] when it comes to religion, which is one of the pressing issues facing us in the modern world. If my opponent disagrees with the importance of religion in the world today, I'll go on the tangent to explain why religion is paramount today in round 2. My second justification is that religion throws a curve ball into the generally bland debate atmosphere of PF, which usually addresses nothing but modern political issues. There is no harm in involving religion, and, to the contrary, I feel like the thought of religion in debate would be substantially beneficial and allows for several new angles with which to attack or defend the resolution or advocacies. ~~~Meanwhile, Con gave up before the debate began, in round 1. I urge a pro ballot. ---Sources--- [1] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] . http://www.nflonline.org... [3] . http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] . http://religion.blogs.cnn.com...
The God of the Jews exists, and Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy, is the correct religion.

"If He wanted us to do something, He would not tell us through one person. " Yes, you have said that before, but you have still failed to prove it! There is no where in the Jewish testament that says that God would not simply use one person! You yourself can not even deny this. But it is what your whole argument is based on. Using evolution was show that there are always possibilities. It is possible that the world simply evolved, and if this was true, then there would be no correct religion. "Certainly. Solipsism is an immature argument. It essentially recreates the entire universe inside your head. It does not simplify anything, and adds labels to everything, and does not conform to Occam's Razor. [1] Besides, it is also irrelevant to this argument. If the universe is truly in my head, then the rules I have dictated for it force God to exist in the universe in my head. Thus God exists in the universe. " You still have not disproved Solipsism. I do get where you find it an immature argument. . . But if Solipsism did exist, then there would be no real correct religion since God does not really exist in the first place. Solipsism and evolution are just one of thousands of beliefs. In mans eyes, we can never prove which is the correct one. We must simply have faith. "My opponent has not put up any significant arguments, and I have destroyed the feeble ones he has put up. He has not successfully contradicted the line of logic in my opening arguments. Vote pro. " I have been really busy this weekend, and since this is only a 24 hour debate, I had little time to write a huge argument. But my point remains the same, which you have not "destroyed. " I guess you supposed that I was going to go through your "line of logic" and try to take those down one by one. I have done a different style since had so little time. I am sorry if you were not able to debate like you usually do. Audience, Judaism has not been and can not be successfully proved, if it can, my opponent has failed to do so. Therefore my opponent has failed to prove that Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy is the correct religion. Thank you audience for reading, and thank you Tower for debating with me.
The God of the Jews exists, and Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy, is the correct religion.

"I have explained that it would be unreasonably cruel to start a religion through a single prophet. Judaism is the only religion that has not done this. " You say this, but how does that disprove any other religion? We are not debating based off of your old testament. Why would God not send just one person? He used Moses to lead his people to the promise land. That was one man. When I stated evolution I was stating it as an example. You would have to prove everything wrong except Judaism in order to prove that Judaism is the correct religion. Let me give you another example of something, Solipsism. How do you know that any of this exists? It may just be your mind that exits and it is making everything up for you. There may not even be a universe. Can you disprove it?
The God of the Jews exists, and Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy, is the correct religion.

I assume my opponent is referring to the theory of evolution. However, this is somewhat irrelevant, as the theory of evolution only deals with the development of life, not with the origins of the universe. As I've stated previously, the only serious scientific explanation of the creation of the universe is the Big Bang. There are no credible or even viable theories as to what caused the Big Bang. It is a seemingly causeless event. Unless you can give it a cause or find a reason it doesn't need a cause, it follows it was caused by an entity that doesn't follow the universal laws of cause-and-effect, aka, God. My opponent says: "Also, assuming that you did prove that God exists, there are many other religions. Christianity, Islam, Mormon, ect… Many of these religions have a logical way of explaining their beliefs." Again, I wonder if my opponent read my opening arguments. I have explained that it would be unreasonably cruel to start a religion through a single prophet. Judaism is the only religion that has not done this. Unless you can find me another one that does, or find me a logical reason that God did not do this, I have disproved the validity of all religions except Judaism. I beg my opponent to furnish me with actual arguments.
The God of the Jews exists, and Judaism, as explained by Orthdoxy, is the correct religion.

My opponent claims that he has proved that God does indeed exist, the reason for this is because there is no other explanation. This is wrong. There is a theory, which I do not believe, that says that it is all an accident. That we just pooped out of no where and that we slowly evolved into people. Now, just because they can not prove this, does it mean that it did not happen? Also, assuming that you did prove that God exists, there are many other religions. Christianity, Islam, Mormon, ect… Many of these religions have a logical way of explaining their beliefs. You still have not proven that Judaism is the correct religion. I look forward to your response.