BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage

I will keep it short, just in case my opponent does not respond, and a whole ton of research is wasted to a "lineant" debate. I stand on the side of "Con" of why Same Sex Marriage is not good; without bringing up any religious arguments. For this debate, I will argue, with evidence, before the legalization of Same Sex Marriage was initiated to all 50 states. To begin, I wish to ask a question of why get married? It does nothing different, except a ritual where a couple is "more closer" together; and in society nowadays, is now commonly resulting in a divorce. You know the promises made to be with each other no matter what when being married, why are they constantly broken? Why go through all the trouble to get married and later result in more trouble within the future? That is why there is a term called: "Dating", where people can love each other, but not be married. Stated under an article by Rick Thomas, he stated that the reason of why dating is better is because you are not "giving" your full heart to your partner. If you break up, its not the end of the world because of "many fish in the sea"; than getting your heart destroyed under a ritual to stay together. So why don't a Same Sex couple just date, instead of getting married? Before Same Sex Marriage was legalized in all 50 states, there were actually only 9 states that did not have it legalized. If a couple really wanted to get married, they would take the time to move to a different state in order to get married. The idea should have remained as a state law, where no side was chosen at this point. For now, that will be my argument until my opponent either responds or does not. Source: . http://rickthomas.net...
Parenting is not a human right

A child is not mature to make rational decision on such important event, during a child period, they are curiously , more emotional attach easy , less real life experience , innocence . lack the mental capacity to understand the nature of their acts, therefore how could child decide "good parenting"? the right of child will always be in the hand of authority . be it in nature biological case or adoption case. Authority such as parent must have the right to make decision ,unfortunate this will be the case for perhaps till a day child are evolution to making clear rational decision. human right is about freedom to make decision , the ability to choose actions and form opinions pedophiles decide to rape a child is not equal to pedophiles decide to be a parent. pedophiles will pay for his action by the formed morals law . morals law is formed by government on parliament , parliament is formed by republic of people vote. if we strip of human right, there will no be morals law. the greatest of being human is the ability to make deciding , parenting is all about the right to be , the choice to be. you have to define your term of un-fit Parenting , before i could make statement on your claim of, one can produce or bear a child, it doesn't give them the right to have them, if they aren't fit parents. OPPORTUNITY is decided by oneself, keep blaming of other for causing you to make a bad choice, and stop learning from mistake. city such as Ethiopia may be poverty , happiness should not be linked to poverty, they do feel family happiness . We should help those who need in whatever way. A Parenting right protect not only the parent but also on the child, its stated in most law, neglect a child is a crime. Parenting right is about having the right to making decision to be parent, be it bad or good , morals or not , will be another topic. we must not control of human reproduction , its a nature issues that we should be given the full right to make decision .
Parenting is not a human right

A child has more right to good parenting than a person has the right to being a parent. It's unfortunate that in today's society this is not the case because it doesn't have breathe yet. In the context of my one liner; I am saying that just because one can produce or bear a child, it doesn't give them the right to have them, if they aren't fit parents. The debate to me isn't really about how we would go about enforcing rules against unqualified parents or wiping them out from existence :) Overpopulation is also another debate, but I can say that over population is a huge problem for society and it also doesn't help people who are living when it comes to living conditions and jobs etc. I am in no way saying that we should do as the Chinese did and regulate how many kids a family can have. I am saying that the idea of people having the human right to have children should only be extended to those who are able to look after and be responsible for them. Society seems to have this problem with regulation. I don't mean everyone should be controlled, and not be able to make decisions, but I also look to the rights of an unborn child, because who is taking care of their right to good parents and being taken care of? The pedophile example may make another debate. but it's very relevant as an example. Because are pedophiles humans? Humans equal 'the right to have children' but does a pedophile really have the right or could the law for instance decide that the pedophile would not be fit to be a parent? That would equal that it's not a right for the that person who remains a human. Same can be said for the 12 year old. Humans may have the OPPORTUNITY to make a wide arrange of choices, but ultimately it gets taken away and limited with choices we make that are considered the wrong ones, because we don't only look to the individual who is making the choice but also to the people whom they affect across the board. Parenting should be seen as a privileged because a right means that we have ownership of that thing regardless of the outcome. This offers no protection to many children. I'd be interested in your view on this. Looking at a place like Ethiopia where poverty and neglect is very serious for children, would you be offended by your parents if you were born into this extreme condition because your parents felt it was their r't to have kids even if they couldn't provide for them?
Parenting is not a human right

if being a parents are to be decide based on your extend , of ability and qualifications , should we wipe out those who are disqualification? if we enforce a law based on your extend, you don't give them the right to live or being a parents . we are talking in overall view, not just a single well qualified lady view. those living in of the 3rd world nations are less healthy human and less safe society, they in situation which they can't control, should we ban them from giving birth? you are taking space in the universal too , u can't just point finger at "them" because of overpopulated. do you think a 12years old will be mature and understanding such topic fully? if yes we have a case . which is why law are there to protect children from pedophile or so. this will be another topic. i don't have child but i agree that being a parent is about having responsible ,once we decided to be a parent , its a life time commitment . how could someone being able to commit as parent when they can't deiced to choose . if such important event like parenting and we could not make a choose, that there no human right. human right is about able to make a choose. no matter if you are from 3rd world or any qualifications
Parenting is not a human right

The right to parenting should only extend to 'good parents', people who have the ability and qualifications to parent. Parenting isn't just about having a body that is able to produce a child and because of this, having the right to have one. Parenting is about taking responsibility for a life and a future of a child. This equals provision, safety and being taught life morals and lessons to enable a healthy human to live and operate in a healthy and safe society. Our society is overpopulated and pretty messed up because of people who feel they had the right to bear a child but would not take responsibility for them. Just because one can decide or make a choice, doesn't give them the right to make it. Would you allow your twelve year old daughter to have a child for example? You wouldn't, because you'd know that she would not be able to offer the child a good start etc. What about a pedophile for instance. Should that person have the right to be a parent? Not all people should be given the right to be parents.
Parenting is not a human right

Parenting is not a human right but rather it's a privileged. Not all people should be given the right to be parents. human should be given the right to be parents , get this clear , im meaning of the right that someone can have a choice to decide if they want to be , or not to be is up to their right as a human. what happen if a law taken away your right as human to give birth ? which mean leave you with only one optional only. The freedom of human right is start by being able to make a choices if we as human can't be given a choices to decide , how could we define human right in the first place?
If corporations are persons then they should have all of the responsibilities & priviledges we do

Corporations should not have to pay any taxes. The government has no right to the wealth that a corporation creates. The government has done nothing to earn the money they demand from the corporation. Simply because individuals are currently extorted into funding the government is hardly justification that this same extortion be extended to other organizations. It is immoral to use violence or coercion (the threat of violence) to obtain revenue; we must acknowledge the states claims to revenue are illegitimate. Corporations should not have to register for the draft. The draft is slavery. The same argument above applies. Simply because individuals are enslaved by the state does not mean corporations should be as well. Further, a corporation is an organization and the draft applies to individuals. I suppose you could draft the individuals who work for corporations but you are theoretically already doing that with the draft in the first place. Corporations do not die. They are not really people. The only way a corporation dies is if it voluntarily disbands or it goes broke. In the former case, it's assets are already owned by it's rightful owners. Why then should the state have a claim on these assets? And clearly if it is bankrupt then there is no money for the state to tax anyway and it's assets will be committed to paying back it's debts. Even if there are left over assets they do not belong to the state but to the shareholders.
If corporations are persons then they should have all of the responsibilities & priviledges we do

Bah, didn't think anyone would take this seriously and reply hence the time limit forfeit. There is plenty of argumentation here that I'd like to make in response but I'd rather not violate my own terms, so instead I'll contextualize the debate and leverage the drops:1. Extend the #5 argument in the second block of my arguments. This is an ironic debate and as my opponent did not engage in the same kind of debate the criticism of the ridiculousness of Citizens United still stands.2. "Corporations do not die. They are not really people." My opponent concedes that corporations do not meet the qualifications of "people" which is what the Supreme Court asserts, strengthening the ironic nature of this debate and why my point has been adequately made.3. My opponent claims that as proposed, the government is using "(the threat of violence) to obtain revenue." However nowhere does he demonstrate equal treatment of corporations as persons qualifies as the "threat of violence". When the second block of arguments go dropped, it's obvious that the only articulated effects are beneficial in nature for corporations. This applies to his draft responses as well.4. The only analysis of what would happen for corporations with or without this treatment was made by myself in R1. While my opponent makes analysis of the "right" of governments, overall, the benefits to corporations are enormous: Social Security, Welfare, Discrimination protection, Running for public office, Free housing, Student loans and Emergency health care. This alone would make approval of equal treatment attractive to them.5. Extend the fourth rule I gave: "Burden of proof is stupid in a world where corporations are people." My opponent concedes that an empirical analysis of the world is untenable when we accept assertions such as "corporations are persons."While I must apologize for not responding in the second round, my opponent does not make enough offense in his argumentation to show why such an extension of responsibilities & privileges is a bad idea, only giving moral reasons why without actually providing a moral measure. This is an open-shut debate for the Pro.
Keynesian economic principles form a sound method of organizing an economy.

I know realize the pro is making a fundamental flaw in hias argument. He is attempting to piece meal Keynisian economics and argue each mechanic seperately but Keynsian economics is a combination of economic practices. The 3,000 charcter limit does not allow me to cover all of the material that needs covered and I will Publically issue a Rematch challenge to Pro on this same topic. I look forward to debating this incredibly intelligent young man in a full debate where a argument can be liberally structured. But I will forefeit this debate. Good job Pro.
Keynesian economic principles form a sound method of organizing an economy.

That chain of arguments was at best incoherent and vague. At worst... a train wreck. (No offense.) I will aim to address these points as directly as possible. "the approach of Keynesian economics is Suicidal to the long term structural stability of an economy" Without the (keynesian :) spending from WWII, the great depression would have lasted far longer. This is a consensus among contemporary economists. "The insanity of Keynesian Economics is based in a model of Infinite growth, a model that relies on an economies ability to out grow its problems" Objection! Infinite growth was not one of the defined points of Keynesian economics that we agreed to. "Every thing about the Collapse was Keynesian, including the massive artificial expansion of the real estate market fueled by a corrupt (at best) deritivies market. The artificial stimulus of the Housing market eventually collapsed as the "real" economics kicked in... From the down right criminal practices of making NINJA loans ENCOURAGED by the Federal government at the time, the whole thing was Keynesian to the bone." Now this is both uneducated and unproven. A corrupt derivatives market, artificial housing stimulus, and "ninja loans" are not only NOT Keynesian policies (not by our definition, or any reasonable or truthful one), but also not the sole causes of the 2008 financial crisis. "Now as the economy tanked from the bust, resulting in Devalued capital the fed turns to Inflation and programs of low interest rates to stimulate cheap money in the finical sector. This is Keynesian economics in practice! Stimulate, stimulate,stimulate... but Corruption gets in the way and what your left with is Paper tiger... the Jobless recovery" I'm skip the grammatical mistakes (or crimes :), and point out that "inflation and programs of low interest rates" are not explicitly Keynesian. Keynesian economics, to reiterate is the government spending money, not printing money. " the Size of the Deritives market is greater the entire &^%$ing U.S. Economy... By some accounts greater than 100-Trillion dollars. " True, yet irrelevant. The derivatives market is not the sole cause of the crisis. "'Everything about the way Keynesian Economics views the world is flawed including the Use of G.D.P as a primary economic indicator. But the long story short is that the Answer is "No"... No new resources to exploit is coming... no new industries are going to open up...the market system CANNOT grow its way out of the economic depression... There will be no more meaningful economic growth in the developed world outside of paper. No system that is Fundamentally AGAISNT efficiency can survive in the 21st century. In the next round in addition to rebuttals I will discuss a superior system." Blah blah blah, grammatical crimes, Keynesian economics is unsustainable. But Keynesian economics is by definition pro-growth. The whole study of aggregate demand is supposed to encourage growth! And it does. Use more facts.
Keynesian economic principles form a sound method of organizing an economy.

Simply put, the approach of Keynesian economics is Suicidal to the long term structural stability of an economy. We may be able to agree that the corner stone of society... in truth the corner stone of any issue of importance is derived from its economic implications. Keynesian model is for this reason all the more inept. The insanity of Keynesian Economics is based in a model of Infinite growth, a model that relies on an economies ability to out grow its problems, hence the enthuses on Aggregate demand. If a fundamental problem arises from here. A perfect example is seen in the Housing market expansion and crash of the 2000's that stays with us even today. Every thing about the Collapse was Keynesian, including the massive artificial expansion of the real estate market fueled by a corrupt (at best) deritivies market. The artificial stimulus of the Housing market eventually collapsed as the "real" economics kicked in... From the down right criminal practices of making NINJA loans ENCOURAGED by the Federal government at the time, the whole thing was Keynesian to the bone. Now as the economy tanked from the bust, resulting in Devalued capital the fed turns to Inflation and programs of low interest rates to stimulate cheap money in the finical sector. This is Keynesian economics in practice! Stimulate, stimulate,stimulate... but Corruption gets in the way and what your left with is Paper tiger... the Jobless recovery. This stems from the second fundamental flaw in Keynesian economics which can summed up with " as long as the numbers look good". And you're not off the hook yet. The deritivies market that drove the U.S. realestate market is also responsible for massive expanses in other places in the world fueled by Artificial demand. THIS results further in the massive size of the U.S. Shadow banking system which dealt primarily in the deritivies market. This is Why the U.S. Financial where " too big to fail" because the Size of the Deritives market is greater the entire &^%$ing U.S. Economy... By some accounts greater than 100-Trillion dollars. 'Everything about the way Keynesian Economics views the world is flawed including the Use of G.D.P as a primary economic indicator. But the long story short is that the Answer is "No"... No new resources to exploit is coming... no new industries are going to open up...the market system CANNOT grow its way out of the economic depression... There will be no more meaningful economic growth in the developed world outside of paper. No system that is Fundamentally AGAISNT efficiency can survive in the 21st century. In the next round in addition to rebuttals I will discuss a superior system.
Keynesian economic principles form a sound method of organizing an economy.

Keynesian economic principles form a sound method of organizing an economy. "Keynesian economic principles" include: Recognition that insufficient Aggregate Demand causes recessions Government spending can stimulate Aggregate Demand Monetary policy alone is often insufficient to stimulate an economy in a recession Arguments: [1] Most economists, liberal and conservative, recognize the validity of Keynesian principles. Famous liberal proponents include Krugman, Stieglitz, and Samuelson, all Nobel laureates. Famous conservative proponents include Taylor (creator of the Taylor rule) and Benjamin Bernanke. [2] Many public goods necessary to the economy could or would not have been developed by the private sector: the highway system, NASA, and the internet were all products of government investments. It would not have been economically feasible for any private company to have developed these. [3] If government spends money on a significant project, the investment will be "multiplied" into GDP (which translates into a stronger job market). For example, if government builds a road, they inevitably hire construction companies, materials companies, transportation companies. [3.1] This money all goes into corporate profits. The economic accelerator effect, which occurs when businesses invest their profits, will further boost GDP. [3.2] Higher GDP, from these Keynesian effects means more jobs (according to Okun's law). [4] In a severe recession, a central bank (i.e. the Fed, ECB, Bank of Japan) can only bring interest rates down to zero, and no lower. This is often insufficient to stimulate the economy. (Liquidity trap.)
abortion should ge not legalize

in my side i am saying that abortion should be legalize because you my have seen various disasters which have been taken place because no correct guardian for children if the abortion is not legalize what happen many children become poor some children may not have a good father or a mother. a one good sample is which happened recently in the country(sorry i cannot mention the country even though i know it) a girl and a boy had suicided their lives by jumping into a river why because there is no proper guardian for that child the girl has been hasn't listen to her aunt because her mother has been into death. say it should me legalize because then many children will be safe without dieing just and without being sad in their lives. thanks.
abortion should ge not legalize

Ok, in the name of my side of the argument I would like to state that it is a crime to abort a child. .There are plenty of families who are ready to adopt, especially in America, and I say that is preferable from destroying a future potential person. There are also a number of other problems with legalizing abortion. One is that some people may use abortion as a contraception, this has very obvious health risks and has been happening in the UK. Another is that it rids the woman of any responsibility for her sexual actions and that she did not protect herself, in other words there are condoms and other contraceptives which one should use if one does not want a child, including abstention.
abortion should ge not legalize

i think the abortion should be legalize because there is about 69% where most of the mothers doesn't have a comfort to give birth . so i think the abortion should be legalize because for example if there is a mother with a lesser earning and have got a devorse from his husband how can she give a birth suppose there are no good relatives also, so how can she give a birth to a child. if she thinks the child will get mentally ill she may think to give death to the child not because she doesn't love to have a child but she takes a farsighted decision that child will be mentally upset one day a one reason is that because that the child does not have a father, no money is another reason.
How i Met your mother is better than the big bang theory

"I already posted my argument. My point is that I don't care what the ratings say I think it is better."And my point is that youre dead wrong on that. "People shouldn't vote just because of the argument they should vote for which show they think is better."........ You dont know the difference between a 'debate' and a 'poll' do you?"If all these arguements were voted on just by who tells what is thought by more people there would be nothing to debate."Exactly, its not a debate that more people like The Big Bang Theory than How I Met Your Mother...."Why would people vote for Tbbt if they like how I met your mother better?"BECAUSE THIS ISNT A POLL"The arguments posted should be explaining why you think what you think."BBT is a better show because twice as many people watch it than How I Met Your Mother, which indicates that The Big Bang Theory is a much better show than How I Met Your Mother, and also because BBT is more critically acclaimed than How I Met Your Mother