BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gay people ought to have rights

My stance is simply that gay people already have rights, and therefore the resolution is vague and doesn't have much of a point. Aside from one right Pro described, gays generally have the exact same rights as straights. Thus, technically I have already won, lawyer style. But of course, loopholes aren't very convincing, so I'll argue a little further than that... According to the UDOHR, gays are entitled to freedom, justice, and peace. Since gays already have freedom, justice, and peace, this isn't very relevant. By declaration, I assume you really meant constitution. The declaration doesn't have much to do with American law, and it doesn't contain a bunch of articles. Anyway, everyone is of course entitled to the rights in the constitution, regardless of race, color, sex, religion, national origin, etc. I'm not sure if it mentions gays, but they obviously count as humans too. You say that the constitution guarantees equal rights among humans. And they do. So once again, this is basically repeating what you already said, and as I stated previously, gays already have the exact same rights as straights. Marriage is allowed too - it's just that they would have to marry to the opossite sex. I'll talk more about marriage in the next part, but technically, gays already have equal rights. Article 16: First of all, you seem to have skipped the first part, where it said "men and women of full age." This clearly means that in the constitution, men are allowed to marry women. It doesn't say that men are allowed to marry men, or that women are allowed to marry women. Back when the constitution was written, it was clear to the founding fathers that gay marriage was unnatural, and possibly even unthinkable. So they didn't put it in the constitution. Natural: Gay marriage is not natural. Although I can understand what being gay would feel like, it's obvious that people of the same sex are not meant to be together. Men and women literally fit together, whereas two of the same sex do not. The gay equivalents of sex is unnatural. It's also extremely unsanitary and unhealthy. You cannot argue that gay marriage is a natural thing to do, even if one thinks it should be allowed. Fundamental: Gay marriage also isn't fundamental because they can't produce children. Therefore, gay marriage isn't important to the structure of society. So obviously, gay people don't fit those two definitions. Gay people should have the right to donate blood: I can agree on this one, although this is the only right you have described that gays don't have. Gays should be allowed to give blood as long as they are tested. However, this rule isn't meant to take away the rights of gays. It's only intention is a safety issue. By the way, this isn't a very important point. If a gay can't give blood, he'll live. It's not like there's a huge blood shortage, or that the gay will die if he's not allowed to give blood. Also, straights are tested. If they weren't, they wouldn't know what type of blood they have. I have no comment on your conclusion since you're repeating again that gays should have rights when they already have rights. Continue.
A Challenge To Non-Christians!

No worries on the video, I got mine in time so it's no big deal.http://www.youtube.com...You don't have to post an outline, but I simply felt like doing so. God being supernatural- God is supernatural Well then God really can’t be tested (electron demonstration) Other religions have the same prophetic claim. Can you say one is superior? Yes because the prophecies in the Bible are extremely specific, but I’ll get on more to that later. Argument for his own message in one book Well we use the evidence of inspiration inside scripture that points to a God! Bad Greek Issue Well actually we have manuscripts that weren’t in Greek. Most of the Greek was Paul who of course spoke mainly Greek. Tongues possibly? The Eye of the Needle, camel or rope? The Eye of the Needle was actually a very compact place known to the people of the time. SO it is camel. Romans did not usually pierce, Jesus could have been stabbed But he WAS pierced so it only confirms the rare situation that Jesus was in, but I will expand once again on prophecies later. Science predicted, people who had access to the same technology, time, had same idea The point of these arguments was that these people came before the ancient people you described, and weren’t scientists in the least. I’ll expand later. They didn’t try to see if the world was floaing they just knew! Valleys of the seas, water cycle. Evaporation Earth floating is supported or floating? Most people would say floating No at the time it was an extremely common belief that the Earth was held. Did not believe celestial beings, that’s why I don’t believe in evidence because I don’t see any. Not adequate evidence to examine universe Could be different ways that the universe could have been made. We don’t have enough evidence, but right now the evidence that we do have points to this. You’re speculating, however this shouldn’t be a voting issue. 7 strands of RNA I’m not here to debate evolution and the origin because I really don’t know as much as I should about the origin! We don’t see it in a politics today It’s because you’re not looking for it Holocaust Read evidence for holocaust prophecy Catholic Church didn’t forgive Galileo a long time ago Church has done horrible things to science to delay needed research for further scientific discoveries. Evil and God, there is no purpose Different issue and we could do an entirely different debate just on that topic. The fact of the matter is science is too young to determine our worldviews, so let’s look at the evidence we know of for sure. Talk about the detail of messianic prophecies. The Bible predicts the rise, decline, and fall of Islam. Scientific Accuracies I have shown you the accuracy of scripture, the prophecies in the Bible, and scientific accuries. Thank You for the debate! Reasons for voting decision: You can decided what you would like to put fot the first four issues, however, I feel I have had stronger arguments with sources to back up everything I say, while my opponent only speculates.Sourceshttp://www.bibleforetoldholocaust.com...http://www.lifeofchrist.com...http://www.maitreya.org...
A Challenge To Non-Christians!

I will use the same lineup as last time but then issue is my computer is extremely slow and the fact of the matter is that I was not able to get the video to load in time, so please forgive me I will post it in the comments as soon as it loads and in my next round as well for those of who would like to see it viewing the debate. I apologize for the inconvenience. Ignore this if I'm able to post the video, but it is unlikely. I need a definition of what you consider supernatural as well.
A Challenge To Non-Christians!

http://www.youtube.com...God is the trinitarian God of the Bible. He is a trinity that consists of God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost.God is the Creator, a will, everywhere, and he speaks. If I say anything contrary to the God of the Bible slam it in my face and please correct me. Also, I would like to say that God cannot sin and also that he cannot do anything that is illogical.http://carm.org...Case1 Contention: The Bible is Inspired by GodSub A: Messianic Prophecieshttp://carm.org...Sub B: Scientific Accuracies of the Bible http://carm.org...2 Contention: The Fine Tuning of the Universehttp://www.godandscience.org...
A Challenge To Non-Christians!

http://www.youtube.com...Welcome, SkepticsAskHere. I hope that this debate ends up being productive. I have indicated my acceptance and I look forward to hearing your case for God. We can flesh out the burden of proof as we go, but I think the impetus is on both of us to provide a viable philosohy. Once your definition of God and reasons for believing in Him have been outlined, I will offer my criticisms and my case for a purely physical world. We can then proceed in whatever direction that takes us.
A Challenge To Non-Christians!

http://www.youtube.com...This a challenge to anyone who is not a Christian! I'm giving you guys the ability to pick the topic, I will be the pro-Christian position and you can be whatever. I will be posting youtube video responses and you can choose to do the same if you would like to but it's not mandatory. Please choose a real topic and don't just enter some stupid topic. Please run it by me in the comments, my youtube channel, my email (skepticsaskhere at gmail.com). I'm used to a L/D format so you can expect that. The video explains more. BTW here's a list of my beliefs so you guys can have a list to choose from:Everything in the Bible is God breathed and inspiredChristian: ProtestantGod is the God of the bibleJesus is the only way to salvationDemons and angels do existNeoCreationist (I support micro evolution)Trinity of Jesus God and the Holy SpiritGood Luck!
Counter Strike: Global Offensive is, on balance, a better competitive FPS than Team Fortress 2.

Counter-Strike: Global Offensive and Team Fortress 2 are prominent games on today's First Person Shooter eSports scene. The matter of which of those games is better is on a big part a matter of personal preference, which can't be changed through argumentation. But asking which one is better competitive-wise is not a trivial question, since, then, there are some objective characteristics that can be debated. Since I have played both Counter-Strike: Global Offensive (I played it about 250 hours) and Team Fortress 2 (I played it about 2 000 hours) competitively, I believe I can point out some attributes that make Team Fortress 2 a game more suited for competitive play. I would like to make clear that I do enjoy playing Counter-Strike: Global Offensive, like many other players, and the point of my argument will not be to discuss the number of players, since the quality of a game is not defined by the number of its players, but rather the quality of the competitive aspects of these games. I'll consider a better competitive game, a game that gives a better environment for an objective appraisal of the skills of the players it opposes. From now on, I will refer to Counter-Strike: Global Offensive as CS:GO, to Team Fortress 2 as TF2, and to First Person Shooters as FPS. The rules are fair, and I'll do my best to comply with them. And most importantly, good luck and have fun.
Counter Strike: Global Offensive is, on balance, a better competitive FPS than Team Fortress 2.

Haven't done a debate in a while, let's do this.Keep in mind I've played TF2 a lot more than CS.DEFINITIONS:FPS: First Person ShooterOn Balance: All things consideredBetter: "of a more excellent or effective type or quality" [1]Competitive: "of or relating to a situation in which people or groups are trying to win a contest or be more successful than others" [2]STRUCTURE:R1: AcceptanceR2: Opening argumentsR3: RebuttalsR4: ConclusionRULES:1. No K's/kritiks.2. Plagiarism results in an automatic 7 point forfeit.3. Forfeiting a round results in an automatic 7 point forfeit.4. No trolling.5. No arguments in round 1, no new arguments in round 4.6. Failure to follow the debate structure will first result in a warning, and then a 7 point forfeit.7. All citations must be within the text of the debate (not in the comments).8. No semantics.Good luck, and have fun!Sources:[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
They who casteth the tho most votes, are the pharo, in their own pea brain.

Hello, Today, I will argue that voters don`t have their brain made out of pea, and are not pharaohs. First of all, Brains are made of nerve tissues, not pea. Cells, the things that make up your bodies, make tissues, a bunch of cells essentially working together. Tissues working together are called organs. Your brain is a organ. The tissues that work together in your brain are nerve tissues. Therefore, people who vote are NOT pea-brains, as peas are not nerve tissues. source: http://www.whyzz.com... Second of all, Pharaohs are Egyptian kings at ancient Egypt, and they don`t have brains. See, since all the Pharaohs are dead, and Egyptians Removed the brains of pharaohs after they die, they cannot have a brain, even if it is made out of pea. So, you cannot call pharaohs pea-brains, as they don`t have brains source: https://www.brainpop.com... Last of all, you said voters are pharaohs. You never specified how what kind of voters there are. Anyone who is 18 and a U.S. Citizen can vote in the presidential vote alone. 50-70% of those people do vote. This goes against what pharaohs are, there can only be one pharaoh in ancient Egypt. Therefore, voters are not pharaohs. source: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu... Also, if anything, the person running or the side in the debate would be a pharaoh, not the person voting for their side.
They who casteth the tho most votes, are the pharo, in their own pea brain.

I disagree. Doctors never fixed the world, because Doctors aren`t supposed to fix it. The job goes to the mechanic. The mechanics Repair cars, therefore You`re argument that Doctors never fixed the world is invalid. Some of the routine tasks for an automotive mechanic are road testing vehicles and using computers to test automotive systems and components. They repair or replace parts such as the fuel system, brakes, engine, drive train, air conditioning and heating, and exhaust. They also perform basic jobs like tune ups, oil changes and lubrications, but part of their job is fixing things,so Dcotors don`t fix the wolrd, mechanics fix things. source: http://careerbear.com...
The US should tell Russia that Edward Snowden is Gay so that Russia will arrest+deport him

"Your debate win numbers are certainly formidable."Dont be intimidated, I'm pretty sure 80% of my wins are due to the other side simply forfeiting :PNow then on to the actual debate, reasons why the US should tell Russia that Edward Snowden is Gay so that the Russians will arrest+deport him back to the US1) Russia currently hates gays more then anything elseNext to not having enough Vodka to make it through breakfast, the one thing that Russia hates more then anything else as of right now, is Gay people. Gays are getting arrested for peacefully protesting, people are being fired for being gay at an extraordinary rate, and the Russian government passed a law UNANIMOUSLY that bans people from telling children that gay people even exist.... Russia hates Gays about as much as the US hates Miley Cyrus right now, meaning that if they were to be told that Snowden was immensely gay, they would arrest him, silence him, and/or deport him back to the United States without even checking to see if such a claim is true. http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...2) Its the easiest way to get him backLesbian-est, the US doesnt have many options for getting Snowden back at this point..... He has succeeded in gaining asylum in Russia which means he is no longer sleeping in a bathroom in Moscow International Airport, and his actual location is once again anyones guess. There isnt anything the US can do to try to get Snowden back without coming dangerously close to provoking war or crippling already strained relations with Russia, but telling Russia that he is gay and letting nature take its course is the easiest way to get Russia to silence Snowden or deport his gay a** back to the US. 3) Snowden kinda does look like a gay guy. I mean a pasty white guy who wears glasses, has a thing for traveling to exotic places and go on adventures, and actually voted for Ron Paul in 2008? Sounds pretty f***ing gay to me..... The fact that when he went to fight in Iraq he broke both his legs in training camp also implies that he is frail as f***, which only adds to his complexion as a scrawny pale little gay dude. The point is, its not that hard to sell the idea that Snowden is playing for the other team to somebody.
should kids in public school be allowed to not get vaccines for religious reasons

Oh great a anti-vaxer this is clearly what I need. Look I'll keep this simple vaccines have never been proven to cause autism. That study was published in the lancet. The person who did the study was payed off and he study was so bad they lost their medical license and the study was ripped apart about five thousand times. About the kid you mentioned remember correlation doesn't equal causation. It was never proven that the flu shot caused it.
should kids in public school be allowed to not get vaccines for religious reasons

I can't faceplam Hard enough. Yes vaccines used to have trace amounts of mercy. two things though 1. They don't anymore. All modern vaccines no longer have mercy. 2. Even when they did it was such a small amount you are literally getting more mercy from a can of tuna fish then all your childhood vaccines combined. So no they don't have mercy and they never had enough for any sort of harm. I'm going to link a short video that I want you to watch and respond to.
Morality is indisputable.

Throughout the course of this debate, I have stated that morality is disputable and is subject to one's experiences and culture. Through examples such as polling demonstrating the differences in opinion in a moral debate and discussing the nature of the Aztecs and how some of their traditions can be considered immoral by today's standards yet moral during their time, I have established how morality can be disputable and subject to various interpretations. My opponent's arguments consist of simplistic definitions of words from Google. com alongside the following proposal: "(IFF) morality requires principles (AND) principles require truth (AND) truth requires fact (AND) fact requires indisputability (THEN) morality cannot be disputable. "My opponent has constantly dismissed my arguments by saying that I have jumped to incorrect conclusions with the "concept of 'objectivity' is outside the scope of this discussion," and saying that my arguments do not abide the definitions for words that he has provided. My opponent's argument fails to provide a burden of proof aside from overly simplistic definitions. He has not provided evidence such as real-world applications to support his argument. Also, my opponent has only used one website to support his claims (Google. com), limiting his reliability. On the contrary, I have also used input from multiple reliable sources to support my claims such as PhilosophyNow. org. My opponent concludes by calling my arguments "especially erroneous" and addressing me, saying "Please focus on eviscerating the logic of my round 1 support instead of merely conflating terms and jumping randomly off-topic.
Morality is indisputable.

Rebuttals:"The concept of 'objectivity' is outside the scope of this discussion."My opponent claims that I have jumped to conclusions. He follows this by saying that his claim is not about how morals are objective but are indisputable. However, my opponent clearly describes objective morals with statements such as "only indisputable claims can actually qualify as moral claims" and that morals consist of "principles [that] requires truth... truth [that] requires fact... fact [that] requires indisputability..." In this case, the morals my opponent is describing and objective morals are synonymous. "Disputable claims cannot be moral claims... It is a simple enough matter to dispute a moral claim, or even to point out that it is essentially 'disputable'..."Moral claims are assertions of whether something is morally good or bad such as "torture is morally bad." Moral claims make up one's morality. My opponent first states that moral claims are not disputable. In that regard, he suggests moral claims, like his definition of morals, consist of facts. Yet, in the following paragraph, he says that moral claims can be disputable. This is a fatal flaw in my opponent's argument. By admitting that moral claims can be disputable, then why can't one's morals be disputable?"I have 'assumed' nothing. I have based my assertions on the most common and mundane definitions. CON doesn't even seem to be talking about the same thing (morality), when CON talks about other cultures. Social norms are more like shared values or consensus opinions... As you can see, these social norms are not 'indisputable' generally, and therefore cannot be considered 'morality"To refute my arguments about how morals are based on my experience, my opponent said that experience and subjective ideas are not "indisputable," and therefore "cannot be considered 'morality." However, my opponent has never provided substantial claims that morals were ever "indisputable," aside from basic definitions. Because my opponent has failed to provide a proper burden of proof and examples demonstrating how morals are indisputable, my opponent cannot conclude that morals are "indisputable."
Morality is indisputable.

I am honored that CON has decided to participate in this debate. However, there seems to have been some conclusion jumping. The concept of "objectivity" is outside the scope of this discussion. I am making a very simple and perfectly logical statement based on the common definitions listed explicitly in round 1. (IFF) morality requires principles (AND) principles require truth (AND) truth requires fact (AND) fact requires indisputability (THEN) morality cannot be disputable. Based on this, I will add the following clarification. (IFF) morality cannot be disputable (THEN) any attempt to make a moral claim evaporates the moment anyone disputes such a claim. In other words, based on common definitions, only indisputable claims can actually qualify as moral claims. Disputable claims cannot be moral claims. This makes morality like a delicate glass sculpture that can be shattered by even the slightest hint of disputability. Whoops! ! Uh, well, I thought it was morality, but it just sort of shattered into exactly three million two hundred and twenty two thousand pieces when I attempted to examine it, so it was probably merely "a strongly held opinion". .. It is a simple enough matter to dispute a moral claim, or even to point out that it is essentially "disputable" even if we don't personally dispute a particular claim. Often people like to bring up horrific crimes which they believe prove the existence of morality, and by a standard of "indisputability" perhaps such claims actually are "morally wrong" at least if everyone who is asked agrees. However, this would mean that morality dosen't cover 99.999% of the other, non horrifying actions that are commonly and easily disputed. Morality is indisputable by definition. If you can dispute a moral claim, it cannot be considered morality. I'd like to address one quote by CON, "My opponent assumes that morality is based on facts. However, as I have demonstrated, it is developed from one's culture or experiences, or outside influences. " I have "assumed" nothing. I have based my assertions on the most common and mundane definitions. CON doesn't even seem to be talking about the same thing (morality), when CON talks about other cultures. Social norms are more like shared values or consensus opinions. Intersubjective observations that are generally defined as "normal" for a particular group of people at a particular time and place. As you can see, these social norms are not "indisputable" generally, and therefore cannot be considered "morality". (If CON would like to dispute these definitions, please only use common definitions. CON has offered an alternative definition of "morality" but since it does mention the word "principles", it is not essentially different than my own. ) I hope this clears up our (possible) misunderstanding.