BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gentle oral sex should be legal for all children

Your proposed system essentially makes it legal for a forty year old have a two year old give him oral sex even though the two year old cannot consent and does not understand what oral sex even is. That would clearly be a horribly immoral policy as it would allow for rape as most people younger than eight do not even know what sex is and they cannot legally (and should not be able to legally) consent. If we are talking about children giving each other oral sex this is different as they are both the same level of maturity which means that no one is taking advantage of another. While if an adult does it they inherently have more power which leads to it being immoral, An adult can convince a child to do something even if the child does not wanna do it. Paedophiles would definitely take advantage of this system to abuse their victims further a four year old can't consent he or she does not even know what consent is, And to remove their legal protection against coercion would be horrible.
Gentle oral sex should be legal for all children

Ok, First to set meanings. Oral sex = Either putting genitals in mouth either licking genitals Gentle = One that causes no harm Legal = Non-sanctioned We all know how children like putting things in their mouth. Sadly, In the world where we live, The beautiful practice of children sucking on adult's genitals has been condemned and sanctioned by the law and the masses. Because of this, Children who have had oral sex with adults are being impacted with the guilt for the deed they have done. For those who want more information on this topic, Book "The Trauma Myth" by Susan Clancy explains this very well. In the book, She interviews today's adults, Children in the past who engaged in gentle sexual activities and came out unharmed by them. The statistics that she uses face some problems from the very start. Like, The fact that she combines gentle sexual activities with violent ones into one statistic. But in her book, She did correct one of her statistics when she said that it is not known whether children are hurt by sexual activities, Or are hurt children more likely to engage in sexual activities. Children who wonder around alone with no parents or friends are likely already damaged by that alone, But they are also easier targets for child lovers. Which means that in studying statistics one can falsely assume that children are damaged by sexual activities, Rather than damaged children being more likely to engage in sexual activities. As explained, It is much more possible that already hurt children are engaging in sexual activities, Rather than children engaging in sexual activities are being hurt by sexual activities. Second factor is the fact that children are often being separated from their lovers when their relationship is discovered, And questioned by family and police. This can easily lead to a sense of guilt, Which later in life results in alcohol and drug abuse. So rather than sexual activities being the cause of problems later in life, The reaction of people, Friends, Family and police are just as likely to be the cause of those problems. Third factor is the huge condemnation of sexual activities with children by the society. Often condemned in news, Stories written about this form of love in a very negative way, Along with the complete media censorship of any positive examples of this form of love. So it is only expected for children who engage in sexual activities to feel as outcasts. Children who had sexual experiences feel like they have disappointed their family and friends, Because the reaction that their friends and family produce is usually disapproval, Which borders closely with disappointment. Saying that society protects children from sexual activities is equal to saying that society protects children from joy. Sexual activities cause joy, Both in children and adults. Saying that sexual activities are against the rights of a child is saying that children don't have right to sexual activities, That their freedom is limited. And considering the joyful nature of sexual activities, It is a negative limitation.
The Anselmian Ontological "Proof" of god's existence is flawed.

Unicorns are man made animal. So it cannot necessarily exist since it's a fathom of men. Same with the spaghetti monster. It's man made. So how do we know god is not man made? Simple. We cannot think of something that doesn't exist. We can say "invisible pink unicorn" but pink exists, invisible exists(wind, empty space,ect,) and unicorn is a horse with a horn, both exists. Think of something like a new color. Something that doesn"t exist. You cannot. So God has to exists necessarily. " you must show how the ontological argument is worthy of "proof" status while the theory of evolution (which has near universal support from all credible scientists) remains a theory." Evolution is false. Scientists believe it because they want to hate god. These are the same scientists that came up with reletivity which is promoted by liberals that leads to moral reletvism. Then reletvism in general. Ontological argument is proof since it shows how god must be necessarily be true if it's possible he exists.
The Anselmian Ontological "Proof" of god's existence is flawed.

Imagine the perfect unicorn. The unicorn exists at least in the understanding, and if it is perfect, then it must exist.The fact that FSM cannot be necessarily true is precisely the point. And your assumption that a FSM without pasta can be considered better shows why you must provide a logical prescription for what is better (see point 4 part 1, round 1). And finally, a fact that is self-evident (unlike Anselm's deity) is that possibility does not correspond to necessary existence, unless of course you prove otherwise in correlation with your responsibility via BOP.You must also show that subjective imagination (in correlation with superlatives) has an impact on objective reality.You must also establish validity of the ontological to deem it a "proof." Note that not even evolution has been "proven," as creationists relentlessly point out despite clear misunderstandings of the differentiation between theories and hypotheses, so you must show how the ontological argument is worthy of "proof" status while the theory of evolution (which has near universal support from all credible scientists) remains a theory. You must also, if you intend to legitimize your argument in correlation with the debate at hand, respond to the many points in my argument which you have either ignored, not read, or not understood.
The Anselmian Ontological "Proof" of god's existence is flawed.

Despite my inclination towards believing your response and your profile entirely are meant as some form of humor, I will respond. No one is debating that god is not possible. There is no way an atheist can prove god does not exist. However the possibility of something being true does not make it true much less probable. If you have read and comprehended adequately the proposed implications of the concept of unfalsifiability (which I am willing to admit I do not believe you have for a second), you would not respond with such neglect and ineptitude. A FSM can be maximally great. You know how? I say he is. This is precisely the logic used by Anselm, and alas, you cannot prove it wrong. As quoted in a previous debate, once you understand why you don't believe in Zeus, Dionysus, Horus, Krishna, or any of the other thousands upon thousands of gods which have undoubtedly been created by man in his image (instead of the other way around), then you will understand why I do not believe in yours. As a side note as well, you are quite welcome to declare your identity as an anti-atheist, but the methodology used by my opponent (while I admit I am inclined to say is rather satirical and ironic rather than of seriousness) is not flawed, not inaccurate, but simply and utterly inexistent.
Intellectual Property should not be monopolized

I understand that copyrights and patents are needed, but what I am mainly arguing is at the extent the law should go to enforce it. The way I look at it is whoever gets there first and receives the first patent; by nature has a monopoly for the product. With the example of the tablets, I understand that there are other products of the same nature. Look at it this way, the iPad was the first modern tablet, as soon as it was patent, doors for innovation of tablets started to close. Now if you make a tablet you can't do this, this, or that because it would be stealing the ideas of other existing products, therefore now that there are a few different models of tablets, for me to go and make my own, I would have to be careful and could not use every idea I came up with, because it might be infringing copyright laws, that is proof that patents slow innovation of new products in a pre-existing field. The law had to change for patents on cars. If the patent said that it was someone's idea to have a motor spinning four wheels, then there would only be one type of car. Now to build a car, the only innovation that occurs is the shape of the car, all the parts that is uses, like the motor, have patents on them, so in order to make a new car, the car company has to make a deal with all of the individual companies that hold the patents for their parts, so they (the patent owners) get a split of the money each time a new car is designed. Because there are certain regulation that a car must have to drive on public roads, car companies cannot get around buying the parts. There is a difference between coming up with a similar idea and piracy/plagiarism. If I were a researcher and I go out, do some research, come back and wright about it, it's not plagiarism to say that my result where the same as some other researcher who did a similar study. As for music and books, it's obvious that I shouldn't be able to go and take the same exact lyrics and same exact beat of a song and wright it off as my own. When I talk about copyright, I'm talking about how it is wrong that if someone wanted to open their own restaurant, that they shouldn't be able to call it "Burger King", just because said a large company said, no that's their name. If someone where a programmer, just like a writer, they can wright complex sentences or simple sentences. When facebook was being sued even if they used the same code as another site, sometimes there just is no other way to code/wright it. Weather someone uses copied code or not, they use it in a specific way to make it work with the way their program runs. In conclusion, I am saying that copyright and patent laws are needed, but they should not be as binding and limiting as they are, in their current state they, by their own nature, give a monopoly to the holder of the patent or copyright. Fun fact: Mac OS is based off of Unix which is an open source program, but they used it and patented their creation, So does that mean anyone who decides to use Unix to make their own operating system is infringing Apple's patent on Mac OS?
Intellectual Property should not be monopolized

Intellectual Property such as patents and copyrights should not have a monopoly over their potential competitors. Just because someone made the discovery first, or has the money to buy the rights of the technology, they should not be given an unfair advantage of the market. Companies such as Macintosh have patents on the "tablet", which makes it harder for other developers to create similar products without being sued for "stealing" the idea of that type of product. Just because Apple was the first to sell a widely popular tablet computer doesn't mean other companies cannot use similar technologies to create their own versions. Laws that protect intellectual property sounds good on the surface, but in reality it just slows down innovation of new products and technology, and hurts the economy because of a monopoly created due to ownership of patents and copyrights. Knowledge and information is power and laws that restrict free use of knowledge ultimately hurts everyone.
gay marriage should be legal

'Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." --1 Cor. 6:9-11' I do agree that this not hard to understand but some people take things like these way to close to heart. when I read this plainly says that these people will be sent hell because they are denied entrance to heaven because of these things. The bible from what Christians say it is 2,000 years old. the bible has been made to be more modern. I want to get back to the people take it way to close to heart. In the news a video had showed a teenager going to church and he was depressed because he was homosexual ,what did they do ? an exorcism I am also aware that this video is a year old I am making a point. http://www.youtube.com... The truth is that everyone as a right to live there life . I do not say that yours is wrong because I have an open mind and can respect that you do, what you do. why is this? it does not effect me so it should not be a problem. I will be waiting for what you have to say.
gay marriage should be legal

I will simply respond to the religious aspect which I failed to respond to in my last post, and await my opponents response. The following is a copy and paste from a previous debate of mine on whether or not homosexuality is condemned as a sin in the Bible: "Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor HOMOSEXUALS, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." --1 Cor. 6:9-11 This verse is no joke. It is not left up to interpretation. This is out of the mouth of God that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. Look to Leviticus also, and you will find God VEHEMENTLY condemning sodomites. So vehemently, however, that there is NO QUESTION as to whether or not it is a sin. " 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.'" --Leviticus 18:22 " 'If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.'" --Leviticus 20:13 God Condemns homosexuals and sodomites to death!! He does not look lightly upon this sin! You ask why it would exist if is is so "unholy," but this is really a silly question. Is sin unholy? It is the complete opposite of holiness! Yet, it still exists. Ever since the fall, mankind has been totally depraved in his words, deeds and thoughts. Homosexuality is just another sexual sin. Homosexuality exists for the very same reason that adultery, lust, and premarital sex exist: the depravity of the human race.
gay marriage should be legal

I had intended to sit in the background observing for the rest of my debate.org career ever since my account was sabotaged by vote bombers, but I am feeling rather ambitious this morning. Let us hope the ambition carries throughout all five rounds. Having said that, thank you for the challenge. this is truly an interesting topic, and, as you might have noticed if you took the time to examine my account, I have debated it many time. Let us begin. You begin by claiming that it is unfair that gays should not be able to marry, and you say that we are discriminating based on their homosexual lifestyle. The fact of the matter, like it or not, is that it is not yet legal in most places. Law, in most places, defines marraige as one man and one woman, meaning that homosexual marraige is not included. These laws have been such since the days of our founding fathers, who in fact would put homosexuals to death simply for being homosexual. They took it so seriously because, frankly, they saw homosexuality for what it is: a perversion of nature. People are not "born gay," as you might think. studies should that, while genetics plays some role in sexual orientation, there is by no means any "master gene" that determines you sexuality, and ultimately, it is the influences of the enviornment around you, and your choice. (http://www.citizenlink.org...) This link even shows proof that homosexuals don't even see their sexuality as fixed or unchangable, but rather as a very changable thing. Having said this, my point is theis: why should we change the writen laws of marraige for a what was once considered a perversion of nature, not to mention, what is even today considered to be a severe minority? I looked over too many sites to reference, but summing them all up, the percentages of homosexuals in the population is said to be between 1% and 25%, the average of all the sites I looked at falling at about 15%-16%. There are a lot of people in the world, and we are bending to redefine laws based on this small of a minority? What gets me is that in our culture (the American culture), marraige is of less and less value. More and more poeple are settling to be boyfriend and girlfriend until they decide they are sick of eachother and want to move on. If our culture has such a low view of marraige, and gays are begging to be accepted into our culture, why even bother asking for the rights? They don't need marital rights to be considered normal. Have you considered that it is widely accepted that homosexuality is one of the reasons for the fall of Rome? (http://www.utexas.edu...) (http://www.freerepublic.com...) Notice how many of these criteria for the fall of the Roman empire fit for our nation, including homosexuality. it is among the negative effects on a nation. Thanks! Renzzy
gay marriage should be legal

Gay marriage should be legal it because is unfair because of your sexuality you should be denied a right just like how you look,act, or how you live. The worst part is that people think they choose to homosexual. Now when people say this that's like saying : I want to be gay now after being strait my entire life. If this is a free country then why because of a sexual presence you are being denied right. Also people tell me that the bible says it's wrong. If it was like that in the bible god did condemned homosexuality (not liking gays) then why does exist then if it is so unholy.
Brevity Debate: Art is essential to society.

Thank you."We have art in order not to die of the truth." -NietzcheA society without art is a society that is devoid of meaning.Art takes many forms, but ultimately, art is the language of human emotion. Art is how we intelligently express our feelings. Creativity is the core of human expression, and human ingenueity. Art is what seperates us from most animals. If we attempted to remove art from society, we would become a society of animals that life only to satisfy day to day urges.
Xenotransplantation

Xenotransplantation like any other medical procedure is good or moral hazard for you.Theres been genetic engineering and new drug regimens, however, it seems that the problems with the rejection in xenotransplantation are being overcome.So we could transplant the organ without any problems and the pig organ would be of good use." because cells can easily be protected from the recipient"s immune system. In fact, pig cell transplants for treating diabetes could be available within the next 10 years". We can solve the diabetes problem. Yousing pigs for xenotransplantation is not animal cruelty,using them for food is animal cruelty. Pigs are already killed for food so there would be fewer ethical problems. People eat pigs all over the world why cants we use them for a good use to save a humans life.Its better to use pigs for a good use than for bacon and the taste of pig."Fewer ethical problems".Do you not think that using pigs for solving a cure for diabetes is a good idea, and it helping other people by solving the donor problem?
Xenotransplantation

The other issue of Xenotransplantation is the ethics of pigs. A lot of people would say that animals are not here to be used by humans. There is the issue of animal rights and the breeding of animals simply for human use and medical benefit. Xenotransplantation goal is to use the least amount of pigs for humans. Instead Xenotransplantation is killing one animal to serve one human. Basically the pigs are nothing more than spare parts for humans. This is ethically unacceptable for pigs, it puts them in a completely different category from any other living animal. The problem of little organ donors is supply and demand. Normal donors would work and would be much safer. We just need more people to donate their organs.
Xenotransplantation

Xenotransplantation is a good condition for humans,shure it would have some problems but it would be less of a risk.The benefits in doing xenotransplantation is that people that need an organ,wouldn"t have to wait so long for someone to donate they"re organ."You have the ability to solve the problem of organ donor because you wouldnt have to wait for a donor we could just inpant the animals organ into yours."They would have pig organs,tissues or cells .The pig organs are foreign to the body ,the risk would be that the body would reject the organ ."The animals organs are foreign to the body of the human".Since the pig organ and the human organ have alot of similarities it wouldn"t happen often.
Xenotransplantation

The main issue of Xenotransplantation is the risk of transmitted diseases. All animals contain diseases in their DNA. The most known for pigs is the Porcine Endogenous Retrovirus (PERV). If they catch the disease, it could spread to others. This is amplified from the suppression of the recipient"s immune system with powerful inhibitory drugs known as immunosuppressants. They use immunosuppressants to make certain that the organs are not rejected. However using immunosuppressants endangers the individual for many viruses. Imunosuppressants would be the perfect environment for new diseases
Xenotransplantation

Chimpanzees and baboons non-human primates wern"t going to be of good use of transplanting their organs to human."..chimpanzees and baboons, were originally used as xenotransplant donors, but concerns about spread of infectious disease.." It would be of higher risk and pigs organs are similar to humans,less of a risk.""risk of infectious diseases is lower than in non-human primates.."Xenotransplantation is a good cause for humans and pigs.People already kill pigs for food what"s the the problem if we use them for saving someones life.
Xenotransplantation

Xenotransplantation is the transplantation of an organ or tissue from a different (non-human) species to a human being. The transplant of pig organs can help many people from type 1 diabetes and parkinson's disease. Xenotransplantation could save millions of people waiting for transplants. Although Xenotransplantation could save lives, It could also endanger it. The transplantation of organs could transfer many diseases. We already know that pigs harbor many known and unknown diseases. There is also the pigs general welfare. To ensure pigs are as free of disease as possible, the environment where they are raised need to be highly controlled. This could mean that pigs would be isolated and only used for Xenotransplantation.
Xenotransplantation

Doctors have tried to transplant animal organs into the human body 100 years ago.Xenotransplantation is when living animal cells,organs or tissues, are transplanted into a human body.In the 1900s scientist"s have failed at why the xenotransplantation wasnt functioning right.They found out that the immune system was rejecting the tissues or organs, wich wouldn"t last long in the body.