BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

First of all "Gay Marriage" is a very touchy subject. I like it :P This is my first time actually competing against anyone. I am quite confused on what acceptance is ( in this case). I am not attacking you but being a "Good Christian" You read the Bible. And clearly in the Bible it is stated that GOD does not want homosexuality because, he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of homosexuality happening there. Gay marriages are clearly a man and a man getting married or a woman and a woman getting married. marriage was intended for a man and a women. You guys are so focused on Gay marriages why don't we focus on polygamy? What about the men that want to be married to multiple women or vice versa ( I'm not saying I agree with polygamy. )?
Gay Marriage

Hello! There will be three rounds. First round will be acceptance. Second and third round will be whatever is on your mind. This is my first time debating and I'm in middle school, so please excuse my grammar mistakes and misunderstanding. May the best debater win! Good Luck! Rules: (1) No vulgar language intended (2) Do not forfeit early into the round. (3) Know what you're talking about. (4) Any prejudice, sexist, or racist comments is absolutely forbidden. (5) Have fun!
Violent Video Games Should Be Banned

1. Your grammar is incorrect. It is wrong to call someone "stoopid" (a. K. A "stupid") when you yourself can not maintain good grammar. 2. What if I am a nerd? That doesn't change anything about my argument. Degrading your opponents instead of confronting the argument is not how you win an argument. You don't know anything about me and you have no right to classify me. Please make an argument appropriate to the subject at hand. Otherwise it goes into the comments.
Violent Video Games Should Be Banned

I will allow my opponent to make the first argument. They should provide several pieces of evidence, Explain why they think violence promotes aggressive behavior and by what standard a game should be banned by, And try to explain why my side (There is no correlation between violent video games and aggressive behavior, Thus they should not be banned) is incorrect. Format - Affirmative argument Negative argument & rebuttal Affirmative rebuttal of the rebuttal Negative final argument, Conclusion Affirmative final argument, Conclusion Best of luck to my opponent. May the best argument win.
Legallizing Gay Marriage Nationally

I am FOR legallizing Gay Marriage nationally. The rules to this debate are simple. 1) no foul language, 2) when using statistics provide your source(s), & 3) no disrespecting any religions and/or belief systems. I will begin with my first argument. #1: The Constitution - "Separation of Church and State" is a very clear line in the Constitution. Marriage is a legal ceremony acknowledged by the government with benefits the government provides. Laws making it illegal for gays to marry because of religious beliefs are unconstitutional and should not be passed, by state or nationally. Gays should be allowed to marry in all fifty states of America, seeing as it is their constitutional right.
Abortion

My opponent has failed to disprove any of my arguments, instead choosing to concede to most of them and fixate on his definition on life which I prooved irelevant in my first argument: " Any person has a right to govern their own body without regard to the impact such decisions would have on others". "You mentioned that abortion is involuntary" again, straw-manning. "they were aware of the risk, which they took voluntary" my opponant fails to address my previous argument, in which I argued 75% of abortion patients are extremely unlikely to have gone through proper sex ed and thus are unaware of risks of unportected sex and of availanle contraceptives, making them unaware of this "risk" they take. "Agreed, but we don't have to give women the right to kill other human beings. How is killing other humans a "self-governing right"?" Time and time again it seems my opponant simply did not read my arguments. As I stated in my very first argument, one has control over what they do with their body, even if the implications of such decisions include the death of another, like in McFal v. Shimp. To conclude my case, I have presented 2 points: -Pregnant women have rights to govern their own body, which include refusing to do something to sustain another life as we have seen in McFall v. Shimp. -The extremely vast majority of abortion patients' pregnancies were not planned. Many of them are likely to have been unaware that they might become pregnant, unaware of contraceptives available to them, or have used contraceptives that failed them, thus are "stuck in this situation" just as much as their fetus. My opponent did not present any points which I did not disprove, and has either conceded to or ignored all of my arguments. Since the voting for this debate is a "who won", I want to emphasize my extensive use of credible outside resources. Thank you very much for this debate, I enjoyed it. I urge you to vote Pro. -Noga
Abortion

You said that my: At what point is it no longer okay to kill? question was a strawmanning attempt. Yes it was, but it is still a very important question for this debate, so its definitely not irrelevant as you said. If we want abortions to be legal, then we need a specific point on when someone gets classified as a human being and an individual. So if you got to decide everything about abortion, at what point would the legal limit be to have an abortion? My point is that the difference between killing and not killing is very extreme. So something very large or important must have happened to the baby in order for you not having the right to kill it (if you had the right in the first place). So if you cant give me something specific that has happened between "killable" and "non-killable" then I think that it is a very irrational claim to be pro choice. I don't think that a fetus is not a life until a specific point. I believe that it is a process, more of a spectrum. At conception, life is created, but is a very small form of life. But again, just because he/she seems small and meaningless to someone, does not give them the right to kill it I do agree on your last statements; there are better ways to avoid abortion, such as the things you mentioned. But even then, while having protected sex, there is a risk. A risk that the woman and the man are aware of, and by proceeding, they accept the risk. If they get unlucky, then the baby should not have to suffer for his/her parents mistakes. "Women.. be seen as carrying vessels" Well, I don't view women that way, and I don't think that most people view them that way either. But women are the only ones that are going to be pregnant. You mentioned that abortion is involuntary, but they were aware of the risk, which they took voluntary. "We must continue... bodily self-governing rights" Agreed, but we don't have to give women the right to kill other human beings. How is killing other humans a "self-governing right?
Abortion

Thank you for your argument.“What if the fetus...being?”(line 2)Since we established all life is equal, it is of equal value to a human.“when...considered a life?”(last line)Refer to definition of life in my first argument.“At what point is it no longer …?”(last line)An irrelevant attempt at straw-manning.“By...aware of the risk involved.”(line 6)In 2011 in the US, 45% of pregnancies were unwanted.[1]Often times, women getting abortions are poor (“75% of abortion patients in 2014 were poor or low-income”[3], “Rate of unintended pregnancy among poor women...[was] more than five times the rate among women with incomes of at least 200% of the federal poverty level”[6]) and hence are far less likely to have gone through proper sex ed[5], or were using contraceptives/did not intend to have sex (53.6% reported using contraceptives, 0.6% reported being raped when they conceived[2] ).The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found “Unintended pregnancy is the major contributor to induced abortion” and that “intended pregnancies account for a very small percentage of abortions (The grand majority of these women did not want to be pregnant- it was a bodily function they couldn't have helped. If they could’ve helped it they would have, which is exactly what abortion is- it is them controlling their involuntary bodily functions.I feel from where you’re coming from, Theo. The loss of human life is certainly tragic, but there are better ways to avoid abortion.CDC[4] found “Increasing access to and use of effective contraception can reduce unintended pregnancies and further reduce the number of abortions performed in the United States”. We must teach women how to not become pregnant so that they don’t have to abort.Women mustn't be seen as carrying vessels for whom unwarranted physical pain, suffering, and huge involuntary life changes are a mere part of their purpose. We must continue to allow them bodily self-governing rights.Vote “Pro”.-N(Sources in comments)#5
Abortion

Hi Noga! First of all, I totally agree with you on the aspect that everyone have the right to their own body. But what if there were another body involved? What if the fetus would be considered another human being? Would she still have the right to kill it? People usually talk about sympathy for the woman who would have to go through all the biological reductions as you mentioned. But nobody ever talk about sympathy for the child. The child has nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, did not have a choice to be in that position and the mother wants to kill the him/her. The only one that had a choice of putting him/her in that position is the mother and the father. By having unprotected sex they are aware of the risk involved. By proceeding, they accept the risks involved. Since she has been aware of the risk involved, she cant be given the right to take another life without its consent. In your McFall v. Shimp example, the man who was in need for a bone marrow. His cousin did not put him in that position, he did not force him into a position like this. Which means that he/she has the right to deny if he would like. But the pregnant woman however, she had a choice of becoming pregnant, just imagine if the cousin would have put him into that position and then refused to donate. That would have been a different scenario. I believe that life begins at conception. At the moment when a human sperm penetrates a human ovum, or egg, generally in the upper portion of the Fallopian Tube, a new entity comes into existence. "Zygote" is the name of the first cell formed at conception, the earliest developmental stage of the human embryo, followed by the "Morula" and "Blastocyst" stages. I forgot to ask, when do you think that the baby is considered a life? At what point is it no longer okay to kill it according to you?
Abortion

I'll start by answering your two questions and then present my argument. 1. "The condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." (dictionary.com) 2. For the purpose of this debate, yes. Any person has a right to govern their own body without regard to the impact such decisions would have on others. For example, McFall v. Shimp, in which a 39y.o. man was in desperate need of a bone marrow transplant which would save his life. The only available match was his cousin who refused to donate. The court ruled in favor of the cousin, effectively declaring that "it is unacceptable to force another person to donate body parts, even in a situation of medical necessity".[1] Likewise, a pregnant woman has a right to govern her body. The potential effects of pregnancy include: pain in the back, abdomen, groin area, thighs, general pain due to her body stretching, congestion, frequent urination, symptoms of calcium deficiency, bleeding gums, shortness of breath, constipation, heartburn, gas, morning sickness, swelling of the face, hands, and feet, nosebleeds, UTIs, and more.[2][3][4] Permanent effects of pregnancy might include the pelvic bone widening, changes in the size of feet, hands, thighs, stomach, and pelvic floor, urinary incontinence, melasma, hair loss, stretch marks, changes in the brain, weaker bones, thyroid problems, and many more.[5][6] Terminating the pregnancy would exempt her from experiencing any and all of these symptoms, and also from experiencing the childbirth itself, commonly considered to be one of the worst pains there are. For this reason, I urge you to vote Pro. Thank you. -N (Links shortened because of character count.) #1 https://goo.gl... #2 https://goo.gl... #3 https://goo.gl... #4 https://goo.gl... #5 https://goo.gl... #6 https://goo.gl...
Abortion

I think that abortion is immoral in every scenario, and that it should be illegal in every scenario. The abortion question is rather simple, if you think that the fetus is a life, then it has human rights, and we cant kill it. But if it is not a life, then sure, we can kill it. I would like to get 2 questions answered before this before the pro choice can start with their arguments; 1. What is your defenition of life? 2. Is all life equal? (I need to add that I'm not religious in any way)
Marijuana Legalization

I think that Marijuana should remain illegal and become illegal in the states that allow it to be legal. We have literally NOTHING to gain, but crime from marijuana. The youth is not gaining a thing from it and some can say it doesn't affect you as bad as we all would like to think, but think of all the crime that is going on. The older drug dealers aren't preying on other older people, they're preying on the young people, because marijuana dealers know that kids/the youth are more likely to keep coming back. It's also a very addicting drug and we forget that. With any addiction there are cons. Drugs are being smuggled across the country and most of the culprits are smuggling none other than marijuana. Legalization of marijuana will only make the amount of drug usage go up and for our youth grade scores will go down. As for medical use, I'm sure there are plenty of drugs that are legal and FDA approved that can help as much as marijuana can.
Satan Will Defeat God

I do agree with your arguments. It's really good tobe honest.However, I forgot to mention this in the first round.According to the bible, it says that the result of the second coming of Christ will end with a promise from God. God promises that Satan will be destroyed and that there would be no more sin, suffering, death, etc. in the future.- "And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever." (NIV, Revelation 20:10)- "As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear." (NIV, Matthew 13:40-43)- "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away." (NIV, Revelation 21:1-4)Best wishes,Jasonhttp://www.christianbiblereference.org...
Satan Will Defeat God

Before I go on, I just want to make sure that we both believe that God is real for this debate (in the Christianity point of view). If not, instead of debating if Satan will or will not defeat God, we're instead debating if God is real or not.So for this debate, let's make it given that God is real and Christianity is real. (This will play a crucial role in my proof.)So let's look at this proof, step by step, of why Satan will NOT defeat God.1) God is real. (Given)2) Becuase of step 1, we can know that the Bible is real.3) Due to this, we can know that God is all-knowing, or knows everything, than any other being. (Omniscient) - “Remember the former things, those of long ago; I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me. I make known the end from the beginning, from ancient times, what is still to come. I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please” (Isaiah 46:9-12) - “Whenever our hearts condemn us. For God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything” (1 John 3:20)4) We can also know that God is powerful than any other being, too. (Omnipotent) - “The Almighty is beyond our reach and exalted in power; in his justice and great righteousness, he does not oppress.” (John 37:23) - "For who is God except the Lord? Who but our God is a solid rock? God is my strong fortress, and he makes my way perfect.” (2 Samuel 22:33) - “And Jehoshaphat stood in the assembly of Judah and Jerusalem, in the house of the LORD before the new court and said, “O LORD God of our fathers, are you not God in heaven? You rule over all the kingdoms of the nations. In your hand are power and might, so that none is able to withstand you.” (2 Chronicles 20:6)5) If He is super omniscient and omnipotent, He wouldn't create a being that would be powerful and smarter than him.6) If He did create a being that would be smarter and powerful than him, then He wouldn't be omniscient and omnipotent.7) If He isn't omniscient and omnipotent, then the Bible is not real which contradicts step #2.8) This would also mean that God isn't real, which contradicts step #1.9) However, it was GIVEN that God was real. Due to this, this could only mean that there would be no being, even Satan, that could be powerful and smarter than God, if it was GIVEN that God was to be real, which it is.And in the Bible, there are no verses that tells that Satan would defeat God. I would totally like some sources for that argument that you are making.I can't wait to hear from you in the next round. Best wishes,Jason
Assisted Suicide Laws should be Universal

This debate is closed. If you still can accept, it would be considered an immediate loss.ResolutionAssisted Suicide Laws should be UniversalEssentially, I'm arguing that Assisted Suicide laws (whether for or against) should not be limited to only the terminally ill.If this definition is not clear to you, ask in the comments before accepting the debate.This is a complex debate. I'm looking for a great debater to destroy me (in a nice way!). Voters must have more than 3000 Elo points. Sorry!DefinitionsAssisted Suicide - Assisting a person to commit suicide. For example, someone (usually a physician) would prescribe or supply lethal drugs [1].Law - The system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties [2].Universal - Applicable to (almost) all people in a country or a jurasdictionRules4 rounds, 72 hours, 10,000 characters, Voters: 3000 Elo Points.For the sake of the reader, the format will be:Round 1: Resolution, rules and AcceptanceRound 2: All arguments in this round (No rebuttals)1. No forfeits.2. All arguments must be visible inside this debate. Sources may be within the debate or in comments.3. Maintain a civil and decorous atmosphere.4. No trolling.5. Feel free to run a Kritik if you want.6. No deconstructional semantics.7. Burden of Proof (BoP) is shared8. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed without asking in the comments before you post your round 1 argument. Debate resolution, definitions, rules, and structure cannot be changed in the middle of the debate.9. Failure to adhere to the rules above leads to an immediate lossSources[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
The NAACP helps African Americans more than it hinders them

Thank you for your kind words, Con. I wish you all the best, and hope we’ll have the opportunity to debate again soon. As for this debate, I did meet my burden of proof by demonstrating that the NAACP has (even if it was in the past) played an important and helpful role for blacks in America, even if they did so on the basis of race. The burden then shifts to Con to demonstrate why they might have at one point been a great help, but that now something has changed to the point where they on net cause hurt to African Americans. He did not do this. Even if you as the voter fully agree with my opponent, and indeed, even if you knew from your own research that beyond all reasonable doubt the facts proved his position and disprove mine, it still would not warrant a vote for my opponent because he never presented such evidence in this debate. In this debate, the points he brought up were only just that – brought up. Few or none of the issues he raised were ever actually developed into arguments which were relevant to the resolution. For anyone confused about why I brought up the seeming non-sequitur of the NAACP’s support of LGBT, it was because I had anticipated a possible line of attack from Con. His contention might have been that because the sole focus of the NAACP is racial support for blacks, it loses credibly and is now impotent (net help to African Americans is thus = zero) or even that their support for racial reasons causes backlash against blacks by angry non-blacks (net help to African Americans thus < zero). To defeat this line of argument before it even appeared, I showed that race was not their sole focus. At any rate, the attack never came, and it may not have even occurred to him. But by supporting the position taken by the NAACP, which again is that the organization is concerned with social justice for all Americans, I had a defense ready to go against Con’s possible attack. I attacked Con’s sources, but he did not protect them. I also provided sources of my own that I believe were sufficient to win in that category. I thank readers for your interest, and for the reasons I have discussed, I ask for your vote in the categories of most convincing arguments and sources. Best wishes, Con.
The NAACP helps African Americans more than it hinders them

I will make this round quick. I first want to again tell the Pro that I brought up that race must not be used as a factor in deciding items or choices because it will teach children that race does not change your life, for better or worse. That is why I brought up that point. Another point I would like to defend is that almost all of what the Pro said was about the NAACP past, and not the present and future. While, yes the NAACP is helping LGBT groups which is great, there main focus is still the treatment of Colored People, for if it was not then you would suppose that they could change their name. I have already used my round to debate so I will stop now with the debating. I would like to thank Calculatedr1sk for his extreme well put together debate. I wish him peace and long and happy days. Thank you again.