BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Nevada May Be Legalizing Gay Marriage

"I understand that to most people marriage is something between a man and woman. However, society today says it is okay to do whatever you want whenever you want. I have always believed in this. I believe that we live in America, where you are free to be whoever you want to. By saying, "Yes, you can get married, but you have to get married in the special, off-to-the-side sort of marriage we have prepared for you." goes against all original principles of America, doesn't it?" --> Under my theory, everyone would have to get a civil union. Religious marriage wouldn't be recognise, only a legal bond under the state would. "Furthermore, if a woman and her significant other are both die-hard Christians and decide that they want to get married, why should they follow this procedure that tells them that they cannot get married the Christian way. The have to get married in some ceremony that tells the world that they don't believe in God. Now, call me crazy, but isn't the word for that a "blasphemer?"" --> A civil union is a legal bond, and isn't denying any deity(s). And when is it the State's right to intervene in religious traditions and tell them who they can and can't marry? "Why in the world would anyone try to obstruct someone's religious beliefs and perhaps their well-being, just because they want to still be able to play "Smear the Queer?" Because, I hate to say it, often times America can act idiotically. L Lawliet said that "We often tease people we don't understand." That is exactly what is happening right here, right now." --> I am not denying rights to anyone. EVERYONE under the society I proposed would have a civil union, a legal bond between two people. Marriage would be a private matter for various religions. It simply isn't being called marriage, but it has the same benefits. I await opponents response.
Nevada May Be Legalizing Gay Marriage

I understand that to most people marriage is something between a man and woman. However, society today says it is okay to do whatever you want whenever you want. I have always believed in this. I believe that we live in America, where you are free to be whoever you want to. By saying, "Yes, you can get married, but you have to get married in the special, off-to-the-side sort of marriage we have prepared for you." goes against all original principles of America, doesn't it? Furthermore, if a woman and her significant other are both die-hard Christians and decide that they want to get married, why should they follow this procedure that tells them that they cannot get married the Christian way. The have to get married in some ceremony that tells the world that they don't believe in God. Now, call me crazy, but isn't the word for that a "blasphemer?" Why in the world would anyone try to obstruct someone's religious beliefs and perhaps their well-being, just because they want to still be able to play "Smear the Queer?" Because, I hate to say it, often times America can act idiotically. L Lawliet said that "We often tease people we don't understand." That is exactly what is happening right here, right now.
Nevada May Be Legalizing Gay Marriage

Before we proceed, I am presuming we are discussing the merits of gay marriage. If we are not, please inform me. ===DEFINITION=== Marriage - the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] Civil Union - n. A legal union of a same-sex couple, sanctioned by a civil authority. [. http://dictionary.reference.com...] ===CON argument=== Firstly, marriage is a union of two people in religious traditions. This is perfectly fine, but where's the governments palace in dictating who religions can and can't marry? Religion is purely a private matter for the individual. If they want to get married, go ahead, but the state shouldn't be in a position to say which religions form of marriage is right and which one is wrong. A civil union differs in that it is a partnership of two people recognised by the State and where no religion involved. This is the best option - It is based on a legal commitment to each other and is religion-neutral, meaning it discriminates against no-one. If the state starts injecting in religions, where's the limit? Should they have the right to start denouncing different religions as cults and say their idea of a deity is wrong? It is in the states interest to separate itself completley from religion and not acknowledge any bond througha religious marriage, only through a civil union. I await a response from my opponent.
Nevada May Be Legalizing Gay Marriage

I heard on a news broadcast that same-sex marriage may be legalized in Nevada. My sister is bisexual, and she intends to marry a girl that she believes is the love of her life. I respect her thoughts, and it would be great if her wedding could be local. I personally am not lesbian/bisexual, but I have good friends who are gay and lesbian. If this goes through, I would be so excited for the gay community, for this would be a huge step in the right direction. Marriage is about love, not gender. As soon as the other states realize this, I'm sure same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide.
The Big Bang is scientifically proven

" I must only prove that, scientifically speaking, the Big Bang is not proven beyond all doubt, even within science" In Science, nothing is proven beyond all doubt, but based on what i have presented, you have not explained why it's not the big bang. Until then, the big bang is the most likely explanation. "I hate to sound like a funamentalist creationist and use such weak argument, but it is a theory because, while it is the accepted way of the universe's creation, it is not proven." 1) A theory according to science has been supported by repeated testing (1). This contradicts your claim that a theory is accepted, but at the same time not proven. 2) These sources show that it is proven. It's been shown that cosmic background radiation has been found (2). You bring other alternative viewpoints but present no sources as to why they are more scientifically accurate than the big bang. Like i said, you have not disproved the big bang theory. Neither have you presented a better explanation that would explain the observations made by scientists regarding the observations of the expanding universe. Sources: 1. http://www.livescience.com... 2. http://www.space.com...
The Big Bang is scientifically proven

I am not under any obligation to prove that any idea is more likley than the Big Bang, I must only prove that, scientifically speaking, the Big Bang is not proven beyond all doubt, even within science. I hate to sound like a funamentalist creationist and use such weak arguments, but it is a theory because, while it is the accepted way of the universe's creation, it is not proven. There are people that believe the universe was zapped into existence by their chosen creator God. There are those that belief the universe was ALWAYS there (ignoring the fact that time can't exist outside of the universe). And yet, despite most of science accepting the Big Bang as the way it happened, they are not able to disprove these other theories with absolutely certainty. Because these other theories would disprove the Big Bang, and they cannot be entirely disproven until we have actually, with repeatable accuracy, been able to demonstrate, in experiments (not simply models, it must be experiments) that there is no other way the universe could have formed, than we cannot say that the Big Bang is 'scientifically proven', but rather that it is only the most logical answer, which is not the same as proof. For instance, the most logical explanation for the reason the sky was blue for a very long time was that there was another ocean above us. Just because something seems like the most logical answer does not mean that, inherently, it is proven.
The Big Bang is scientifically proven

"Firstly, while all these piece of evidence certainly do lend themselves very nicely to the Big Bang, there are other possibilities. First of all, Christians might (very slim chance, but whatever) be right, and an all-powerful, all intelligent God could have zapped the universe into begin exactly as it was 5000 years ago. Of course, this is a slim chance, but we have no scientific way to prove otherwise at this point and, until we do, it cannot be said that the Big Bang is 'scientifically proven', because that proof would have to be demonstrable, repeatable, and without any doubt." While yes i am a Christian, i am only arguing within the field of Science. You bring up a good point and because it already happened, we cannot be as certain as we want that the big bang is verified, however efforts are being made to create a collider that could potentially recreate the big bang explosion (1). While science cannot yet completely replicate the actual event, it can gather observational data to recreate the past. "There are other theories and ideas that mean that there is some margin of doubt, and any doubt prevents the Big Bang frombeing absolutely proven." you can present those ideas and see if they explain the universe better than the big bang. Sources: 1. http://www.nbcnews.com...
The Big Bang is scientifically proven

Before I begin, I should like to define one term: Proven[1]: to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument. In scientific terms, to be proven means to be given proof beyond any doubt, with 100% certainty, and with repeatable and demonstrable results. You do, very truly, have quite a case proving that the Big Bang was almost certainly the creation of the universe. However, if you would notice, the resolution states that 'The Big Bang is Scientifically Proven'. Meaning that science must be completely without doubts as to the Big Bangs existence in the same manner as gravity. Which brings me to a cliche, but still valid argument: There is no proof that proves, with 100% scientific certainty, that the Big Bang is the only way that the universe could have come into existence. We, as humans, have extensive evidence lending itself to the idea of the Big Bang, and nearly all rational thought would lead to that explanation, of course. But, unfortunately for your case, it is not scientifically proven. Firstly, while all these piece of evidence certainly do lend themselves very nicely to the Big Bang, there are other possibilities. First of all, Christians might (very slim chance, but whatever) be right, and an all-powerful, all intelligent God could have zapped the universe into begin exactly as it was 5000 years ago. Of course, this is a slim chance, but we have no scientific way to prove otherwise at this point and, until we do, it cannot be said that the Big Bang is 'scientifically proven', because that proof would have to be demonstrable, repeatable, and without any doubt. We are close to being able to repeat the big bang with machines such as the Large Hadron Collider, but we have not yet achieved demonstrable evidence that proves, with absolute, 100% certainty which is required by science, that the Big Bang is the only way. I'll be honest, the Big Bang is likely what created the universe. But, it is NOT anywhere close to 100% certain. There are other theories and ideas that mean that there is some margin of doubt, and any doubt prevents the Big Bang frombeing absolutely proven. In order to scientifically prove something, it must also be demonstrable and repeatable and, given the fact that we are unable to, with current technology, demonstrate, and much less repeat, experiments that would mimic the creation of the universe, we are unable to label the Big Bang as anything other than a theory. Mathematical and scientific models aside, the slim possibility that they are inaccurate and that some other force created the universe is enough to ensure that the Big Bang is currently impossible to prove with the certainty that is required for something to be considered 'scientifically proven', and will likely remain so for a very long time. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com...
The Big Bang is scientifically proven

The big bang theory states that the universe expanded from a hot tiny dense point millions of years ago. After the explosion, it cooled enough to form subatomic particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons. Evidence for the theory comes from Hubbles law which states the universe is constantly expanding. The big bang theory was proven when Christian Doppler discovered that the frequency of a sound wave (sound, water, and light travel in waves) depended on the position of it's source. As a moving object approaches you, the sound compresses, frequency changes, and the sound pitch is perceived differently. When the object moves away, the pitch goes down and is called the Doppler effect. Scientists observed that some stars had more light into the red part of the spectrum. They theorized that the stars were moving away from the earth and the wavelengths emitted were being stretched. The stars shifted to the red end as it had longer wavelengths. Hubble noticed that the star's velocity was proportional to the distance of the Earth, showing that the universe is expanding. He then proposed that the universe would've been so much smaller and dense billions of years ago until it reaches a single point with a lot of radiation and heat. This is evidenced by the presence of cosmic microwave background radiation. With this in mind, the big bang theory is grounded on science. Sources: 1. http://science.howstuffworks.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Big Bang is scientifically proven

I must ask, then, what experiments have been done that are repeatable and demonstrable that stand as absolutely scientific fact that, beyond all doubt, prove that the Big Bang must be what happened. There are undeniable facts proving things like micro-evolution, how (a large part of) the human body works, and magnetism, and these things are testable, repeatable, and demonstrable. They can be -- and have been -- recreated in a lab, thus proving the conclusion. However, we are unable to replicate the Big Bang, and all the evidence used to support it, while leaning towards the Big Bang, is not a guarantee that the Big Bang was the only thing that possibly could have created the universe. I do not need a better theory than the Big Bang and I do not need to disprove the Big Bang, I must merely prove that, within the boundaries of science, the Big Bang is NOT proven. I will admit that I was foolishly attempting to catch you in semantics in reference to the 'Big Bang' being a theory, but regardless of that fact, the Big Bang remains unprovable. So long as there are alternative explanations and it cannot be replicated in a scientific setting, it cannot be proven to the degree that science demands. Science does not demand 100% accuracy (which I had stated before), but does require a degree of certainty that the Big Bang does not yet have. As soon as the Large Hadron Collider (Or, I suppose, some other, similar, lab setting) is able to, every time, produce results that lead to the conclusion that the universe MUST have been created by the Big Bang, than the results, even within science, are debatable. Again, before we knew about the world, the 'best explanation' for why the sky was blue was that there was another ocean above us. Before we knew more about female sexuality, a hyper-sexual woman was considered to be suffering from 'female hysteria', because that was our most logical assumption. But, both of these, through demonstrable and repeatable evidence, have been disproven. Clearly, these were wrong. That is not to say that the Big Bang Theory is wrong, but merely to say that the Big Bang theory still has too much potential to be wrong to be considered 'Scientifically proven'.
Feminism! Hooray!

Well I haven't had a decent debate in a couple months and and figured why not discuss feminism in modern day North America (when I say this I'm referring to Canada & the US of A, sorry Mexifriends). I've been having a lot of "good" back-and-fourths with Stefy about feminism and equality and such in comments and polls and whatever, so if she could accept I'd love it, but if someone else does I'd be just as happy.So as anyone who knows me on this site would already know, I'm against modern feminism in North America. I find it nothing more than an excuse to get women special treatment and put down others in order to make feminists look good. It "unknowingly" fights for female superiority under the guise of "equality."I don't want to get too into this right now so I'll leave the first round for my opponent to open with arguments as to why feminism is or should be necessary in North America.Inb4 "Feminism is the advocacy of women's rights on the grounds of political, social, and economic equality to men. Therefore feminism is great!!!1!@" - Citing a definition does not mean the movement as a whole is beneficial or not detrimental.RulesForfeiture of any round will result in a full seven-point loss. I can't make this clear enough, if you want to participate in a debate, please don't go on vacation half way through. If you do have to leave because your neighbour took your sister hostage, please just... deal with that on your own. Five rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 Characters. No semantics.I won't mind if you get emotional and insult me because I stated facts that destroy your argument ;) Come one come all, I don't care how many debates you've completed or not completed, if you bring up good arguments I'm happy!Thanks and good luck!
National Healthcare

With America’s infant mortality rate at 50th in the world, most of the countries we’re behind have universal health care. Instead of progressing with the rest of the world, we let corporations profit on our sick and weak, at the expense of our economy. The economy has the potential to go far up if healthcare was put into government hands due to companies having to spend less on employee benefits. Because of these advantages, a universal healthcare system would improve the lives of all Americans. America’s infant mortality rate is 50th in the world* behind a vast majority of countries in whom have a universal healthcare system. In America, one of the few countries that privatizes healthcare, our babies are dying at a faster rate of that of even Cuba. If America is the best country in the world, as has been stated by every politician taken seriously, why are we so behind on this issue? The only way to fix this is to form a government-funded healthcare system in which everyone benefits. To deny anyone coverage and allow them to die, simply for lacking a private health company is, in anyone with a moral clock, barbaric. Corporations who deny healthcare to someone due to their lacking enough money is barbarism, and should be treated as inadvertent murder. If a gang rounds up a bunch of people and tells them that if they do not hand over enough money that they will die, that would not go unpunished. The fact that free-market capitalism can put a smiley face on the previous scenario is reason in-and-of itself to add a universal healthcare system to the way things work in America. If an American Universal Healthcare system is adopted, the US economy would increase by a significant margin, as companies that include health benefits would not have to provide these, due to the government covering that previously. The companies spending less on their workers health benefits would allow for a higher company profit, making business more successful, thus increasing US economic growth. Universal Healthcare would decrease, becoming lower than that of Cuba, which is a good start. Fewer American people would be denied benefits due to not having enough money, and the economy would increase.
Science is a Threat to Humanity

Consented Points - As I established in the second round, silence equals consent in these debates. My opponent has not touched my points, save for qualifying his statement with "at first. " As such, my contentions and rebuttals have all been assented to, excluding those with the qualifier of being early in the study of natural phenomena. As such, the resolution has been narrowed at this juncture. I will still attempt to rebut these points, but I feel it needs to be noted that my opponent appears to be shifting the goal posts from the whole of science to its pioneers. Attack My opponent's final case consists of a single core point, which he has categorized his original points into. Contention: The uncertainty of outcomes. My opponent notes that experiments in science has completely uncertain outcomes. I do assent to this point, but it in no way fulfills his burden. The definition of threat is qualified with the term "likely," which a complete uncertainty does not imply. If we can gather no certainty, we can gather no probability, so this point falls through. My opponent has also not provided us a case where experimentation has resulted in catastrophe. Because probability is calculated by odds of an event occurring, examples are necessary. My opponent lists none (excluding the Trinity article, which states no relevant information), which implies it is highly improbable for experimentation, let alone science, to hurt anyone. Furthermore, as my opponent assented to my rebuttals, he agrees that a product of science does not display the harm of science, so this point seems to hold little relevance. Conclusion:My opponent has assented to my claims, and I have refuted his claims. I have displayed how science can not affect all people and how it cannot, by its very nature, increase risk. Because of this, I strongly urge a Con vote. This debate was thoroughly enlightening, and I must thank my opponent for proposing this case. His case was a difficult one to combat, and I hope he feels as if this debate was as fruitful as I do.
Science is a Threat to Humanity

As my opponent has stated "fire and animals, stating that these phenomena are dangerous to humans. However, as I have stated in my second contention, the study of this does not, in any way, increase the danger of these phenomena. " Yes now we know the results of some experiments that can be made with these. Though what my opponent has not seen is that when we were testing these for the first time we did not know what the outcomes may be. Therefore every science, at first, can be a threat for humanity. Also nuclear weapons had to be tested. Although the scientists should have known about what type of outcome they would recieve, the actual result was undecided until after Trinity (first nuclear bomb test). The outcomes could have either been horrendous, whipping out half the world, or maybe it didn't work at all. About Trinity. .. . http://en.wikipedia.org... Hope I convinced you. ;D
Science is a Threat to Humanity

Yes, I see why you say that science did help us but that it helped us doesn't mean it's not harmful. Each science experiment has a chance of being extremely dangerous if the outcome is unknown to humanity. Also, on the website you posted it is quite visible that many people do not agree in the comments. It does not have a bibliography and the last updates are not mentioned, therefore this website is not to be trusted. http://phys.org...