BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Being gay is harmful to society.

"The trait and lifestyle of being romantically attracted to the same sex does not hurt anyone or anything.If something is not harmful to anyone, I do not understand how is can be wrong." The first sentance is simply an assertion of the negation of the resolution, which is quite an expansive statement as it proposes than an act, uniformly, and absolutely causes no hurt to anyone or anything. That is a very hefty burden of proof to sustain and I await the argument which attempts to provide a locus for such a contention. Second, as ID proponents are commonly made aware to their amazement, simply because it is not known how something can be achieved does not mean it is impossible for it to happen. Beyond this, the statement simply restates the assertion and affirms the desired conclusion. Before an actual refutation is offered then an actual argument needs to be made. As a point of clarity, some definitions : 1) Harmful : causing, or capable of causing harm (injury) [1] 2) Society : a collection of organisms of the same species (restricted to people in the present context) [2] 3) Gay : having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex (as noted previously in the OP). [1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com... [3] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Being gay is harmful to society.

In this instance, the gay couples can choose not to be harmed emotionally by this injustice." Really, defend denying gay couples the right to adopt does not cause them harm because they can "get over it"? I agree fully that one can, if their emotional intelligence is high enough, control how they feel and maintain serenity even in extreme cases, does this mean that there is no actual loss suffered? Does a mother that loses her child and is able with support and love able to find peace really deemed to not have suffered a loss? It is any less to deny her the right in the first place to have a child simply because her partner is also a woman? We are not talking about here simply how they feel, we are talking about denying someone the right to raise a child and how denying them this right removes something from their life. Yes, is possible that a mind so disciplined could still be at peace but the same argument could be made about any loss. Would the argument extend to slavery does not cause harm because a slave could by the same logic choose not to be harmed emotionally by the loss of freedom? Harm is injury, injury is loss [2], while emotional stability can be maintained, the loss is still very much there. To summarize : 1) gay people suffer direct and indirect emotional/physical harm, from the definitions noted and accepted, a cause (to be clear not the only cause) is the fact they are gay 2) due to limited recognition of gay couples it can cause direct harm such as forced separation (refusal of VISA applications) 3) gay couples are prohibited from adopting in many places, this is an obvious cause of harm as it is the loss of the ability to raise a child 4) gay couples do not have the ability to bring their own unique child into the world, this is a loss compared to non-gay couples 5) gays have a much lower probability of finding optimal unions (there are simply less gays) Now the rebuttal to these were : 1) The "real" cause is the anti-gay hatred. As noted while it is conceded that is indeed a cause (and primarily the most actionable cause obviously, i.e., what should be "fixed") it is not the only cause. This is a semantic argument clearly however and hinges on definitions and how they apply to the resolution. 2) No rebuttal offered. 3) They can choose not to have that bother them. Refuted in the above, they still suffer a loss, unless it is argued that it is of no benefit to have children which was never argued. 4) No rebuttal. 5) No rebuttal. Now while the first rebuttal was a valid response, the rest of the rebuttals concede there is a loss but simply that gays can choose to not have it bother them. Note at best, even if the logic held and was accepted, at best it only deals with part of the definition of harm it does not eliminate the "potential part" because not all people are guaranteed to be able to have this level of serenity and thus the potential for harm is still there. [1] http://jokebest.tblog.com... [2] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...
Operation Dragoon is part of the reason why there was a Cold War

I would like to point out to Con that the statement above has nothing to do with what the topic is based: So I ask him for the final time, did Operation Dragoon lead to the start of the Cold War? Hitler was only an excuse Stalin used to build an empire. Otherwise, he is unrelated to the topic and Con should lose the debate. I highly doubt that Stalin was building his empire just for safety and security. He clearly was a menace to the free world, and should never have been trusted with half of Europe under his belt. I believe Con has put up some very weak and unrelated points and does not deserve the points.
Operation Dragoon is part of the reason why there was a Cold War

My opponent clearly doesn't study World War 2 too well. Operation Dragoon, as I have told so, happened in Southern France. My belief is, had Churchill persuaded Roosevelt to attack the Balkans and Adriatics, Stalin's empire would not have been as big as it was had they followed up this plan. My opponent has also not realised that World War 2 was the excuse Stalin needed to build his empire. His excuse was to liberate countries from the reign of tyanny that the other World War 2 tyrant, Hitler, had placed on 3 quarters of Europe. I believe Stalin was so arrogant on forcing the Allies to invade and focus only on France because he was preparing an empire for more war. Had they denied Stalin and invaded the Balkans, it is possible to say that the Cold War would've never happened, or at least been shortened.
Operation Dragoon is part of the reason why there was a Cold War

As many know, Operation Dragoon followed the successful plan to invade Italy. It took place in Southern France, and was hugely successful with the Allies. However, Winston Churchill claimed the invasion was "stupid" and Mark Clark, top American General in Italy, believed him. Churchill would tell Franklin Roosevelt, then American president, that Operation Dragoon was: "The first political and strategical error for which we too must be responsible". Churchill believed that after the invasion of Italy, the Allies could've headed east, taking Trieste and Ljubljana off the Germans, and then the Balkans and Adriatics. I believe that had they gone through with Churchill's plan, Stalin would not have been confidant enough with his "empire" and call off attacking America, France and England. The above is the goal of Pro. If he can successfully prove the above, the points should be in favour of him.
Kids should do their own laundry.

1. Children are the primary market for video games. The game industry caters to adult tastes. Meanwhile, a sizable number of parents ignore game ratings because they assume that games are for kids. One quarter of children ages 11 to 16 identify an M-Rated (Mature Content) game as among their favorites. Clearly, more should be done to restrict advertising and marketing that targets young consumers with mature content, and to educate parents about the media choices they are facing. But parents need to share some of the responsibility for making decisions about what is appropriate for their children. 2. 6. Video games are not a meaningful form of expression. On April 19, 2002, U.S. District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh Sr. ruled that video games do not convey ideas and thus enjoy no constitutional protection. As evidence, Saint Louis County presented the judge with videotaped excerpts from four games, all within a narrow range of genres, and all the subject of previous controversy. Overturning a similar decision in Indianapolis, Federal Court of Appeals Judge Richard Posner noted: "Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault are aware." Posner adds, "To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it." Many early games were little more than shooting galleries where players were encouraged to blast everything that moved. Many current games are designed to be ethical testing grounds. They allow players to navigate an expansive and open-ended world, make their own choices and witness their consequences. The Sims designer Will Wright argues that games are perhaps the only medium that allows us to experience guilt over the actions of fictional characters. In a movie, one can always pull back and condemn the character or the artist when they cross certain social boundaries. But in playing a game, we choose what happens to the characters. In the right circumstances, we can be encouraged to examine our own values by seeing how we behave within virtual space.
Kids should do their own laundry.

I accept this intriguing debate. I guess I'll present some arguments: First of all: The first statement assumes that said children are spending a significant amount of time on these video games instead of many other popular hobbies such as sports, cooking, eating, drawing, playing music, or even playing other video games such as FIFA. This also assumes that the parents have no restrictions on how long the children are playing the M rated games. Some kids have a limited amount of video game time and some others aren't allowed to play them at all. Second of all: My opponent hasn't provided any evidence that says that M rated video games are bad influences. Third of all: Let me get this straight. You want make them to do their own laundry so they can learn to be a parent, and a parent's job is to do the laundry. Who's job is it? Pro never specified how old a child is or how old it is that someone is capable of doing laundry, so this point is pretty confusing and difficult to support.
Kids should do their own laundry.

I think kids should do their own laundry, because it get's kids away from video games that they are playing, and M-rated video games such as Call of Duty: Black Ops and Call of Duty: Black Ops II have been proven to be a bad influence on children and teens. Also children should do their own laundry, because it teaches them how to be a parent, because parents have to wash their younger children's clothing, and if they do not even know how to use a washer and dryer how are they going to be able to wash the clothes of their young children whom are too young to even learn how to use a washer and dryer.
This House Believes that Hate Speech should not count as Free Speech

Before I get into case I will offer some definitions. Censorship : The suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive." Rational: Having a reason or an understanding. Purpose: The reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists. Opinion: a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. Now I will get onto my arguments. Not counting hate speech as free speech violates the very definition of free speech. Look at my definition for opinion, a view or judgment formed about something that does not necessarily have to do with fact. What this means is that hate speech is an opinion. Now look at my opponents definition of free speech, speech that expresses any opinions with out censorship or restraint. So if hate speech is an opinion, which it is, and free speech is speech that shows an opinion without censorship, than hate speech should fall under this category. Finally look to my definition of censorship, it says that censorship is based on whether or not the words or ideas are offensive. And as my opponent alluded to hate speech is offensive, and if free speech cannot be censored, than neither should hate speech. Hate speech is rational and can serve a purpose. Look to my definition of rational, having a reason, now hate speech does have a reason attached to it, whether that reason be to offend or to harm, hate speech still has a reason. What this means is that hate speech is by definition, rational. Hate speech can also serve a purpose. Whether it's purpose is to insight rage or simply offend it still has a purpose. And things with purpose have a use and thus are important in some way. In conclusion, by definition hate speech falls under the branch of free speech. This means that it should not be banned. On top of this hate speech is both rational and serves a purpose which means that it is not horrible useless category my opponent paints it to be. For these reasons I strongly urge a con vote.
This House Believes that Hate Speech should not count as Free Speech

Definitions: Hate speech - Speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Free speech - speech that expresses any opinions without censorship or restraint. By very definition, hate speech is not rational. It is never rational to attack a person or a group based upon something they have no control over or have rationally chosen to identify themselves as. This is the case because the existence of groups of people in themselves should not be something that can be ridiculed or attacked. There is no expressive value and the speech is hateful and damaging. The marginalised are currently damaged and put down by the toxic atmosphere created from the excessive freedom of a few bigoted individuals to damage others without any actual arguments being expressed. We can help these marginalised groups to succeed in a world which is stacked against them if we introduce fair and reasonable constraints on speech which is offensive, useless and harmful. Speech should serve a purpose. Just offending someone is not a good use of that speech. Since therefore hate speech is solely damaging and doesn't express any legitimate arguments we should ban it in the interests of protecting those who are vulnerable and oppressed under the system hate speech perpetuates. Very happy to debate this motion with anybody. Please do accept my challenge. Use the first round to signpost your argument. Then use the middle 3 rounds to continue your argument and rebut what has been said. Finally, use the final round to summarise and avoid bringing in new content.
Nero is the Best Devil May Cry character.

Compared to the other characters, Dante and Vergil in Devil May Cry, Nero is the most emotionally engaging character that we can play as based on the games. Dante, While being the key feature is most of their titles, Is the most disconnected when it comes to trying to find familiarity in. Nero compared to Dante starts off weaker as he develops his powers and skills rather than having them from the beginning. We could solidify a relationship with Nero and Kyrie that would give him more reason to fight, Rather than deciding that he wanted to kill out of boredom, Or some side characters would come seeking help from him. His 'friends' turn on him and kidnap Kyrie as the story continues which visible is hard to Nero as he screams and yells, Punching the ground in anger. Nero is the best DMC character. P. S. For this sake, Let's count out DMC: Devil May Cry since I see people say they don't like that "reboot" game.
The Legal Driving Age Should Be Changed to 18 in the U.S.

By not objecting to Contention 1 he has conceded that contention. <<#2 Im going to say there something wrong with it we here are talking about the license correct. Well we never mention the permeit instead of having the permeit for 2 years we'll have it for 4 years lots of time to a. k. a train for driving. >> Actually, it's 1 to 3 years. The amount of a permit won't affect driver experience that much between 1 and 3 years because you're limited with a permit. You can't drive at night, you have to drive with an adult, and you're not even allowed to drive with people 18 and under. The problem is with new drivers happens when they can do all this new stuff on their own and they can't handle it. Think about, if you're on training wheels for 3 months you'll probably get it down and be ready to take them off. If you have them on for 3 years you'll be MORE ready, but by how much really? You still haven't experienced not having them and you've done nothing to prepare you for that. In this case, you'll probably do just as good as the other person who had it less. <<#3"When you're 16 a lot of job oppurtunities open up for you" Objection! For one what hole have you been in for the past 5 years? The economy is so bad that adults can not get jobs, yet you argue that teens need jobs thats a scham. >> Two problems with that argument. First, many jobs that teenagers go for are not jobs that adults would go for. This is because teenagers are happy with a minimum wage job, but adults aren't and can not. That's because an adult usually has to support a family which requries more than minimum wage, while a teenager does not. How many adults do you see working at McDonald's as their job? How many do you see working at Kroger (not including people who take jobs like that in retirement to take up time)? Without the teenage workforce restaurants, ice cream shops, and grocery stores would be well under-employed. Second, basing a long-term law off a short-term problem is stupid. The recession isn't going to last forever, so using that as a reason does not hold any weight. To reiterate, teens don't get the same jobs adults who want to support a family do. Teens are an important part of the work force and the economy would probably get hurt even more if they weren't around. Good luck.
The Legal Driving Age Should Be Changed to 18 in the U.S.

For the start for 2 and 3 of your CONTENTIONS im going to have to say Objection! #2 Im going to say there something wrong with it we here are talking about the license correct. Well we never mention the permeit instead of having the permeit for 2 years we'll have it for 4 years lots of time to a.k.a train for driving. #3"When you're 16 a lot of job oppurtunities open up for you" Objection! For one what hole have you been in for the past 5 years? The economy is so bad that adults can not get jobs, yet you argue that teens need jobs thats a scham.
The Legal Driving Age Should Be Changed to 18 in the U.S.

Thank you for your timely response. <<1#In the united states death toll there has been 10,560 deaths between the ages 15-24 this year so even at 18 your on thin ice.>> So your saying that 18 is still bad? Isn't that the opposite of what you're trying to prove? ::CONTENTION 1:: On a maturity level, the difference between a 16 year-old sophomore or junior and an 18 year-old senior or college freshman is not that much. What do we gain from changing the driving age from 16 to 18? According to my opponent's own sources the accident rate won't be much better, as ages 16-24 cause most of the accidents, meaning that 16 year-old drivers and 18 year-old drivers are basically the same. ::CONTENTION 2:: When you're 16 you can be parentally supervised unlike when you're 18. When you're 18 you are a free man legally and are not required to live with, listen to, or talk to your parent or guardian. This means that brand new drivers will enter the street without any responsible adult to watch over them. I believe this is much more dangerous than a 16 year-old with adult supervision. ::CONTENTION 3:: When you're 16 a lot of job oppurtunities open up for you. If you don't have a car, that closes a lot of them down. A lot of stores would have a hard time finding workers if all there 16 and 17 year-olds didn't work there due to a long commute. If a teenager has a car he is more likely to have a job and in doing so help out the economy. Good luck.
The Legal Driving Age Should Be Changed to 18 in the U.S.

Should the legal driving age be 18 with this a strongly agree, i will now provide proof of this. -----evidence----- 1#In the united states death toll there has been 10,560 deaths between the ages 15-24 this year so even at 18 your on thin ice. http://www.the-eggman.com... 2#77% of teen crashes involved "avoidable" driver errors 3# Motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death for 15-20 year olds 4# Teens have the highest involvement rates in all types of crashes http://www.drivingmba.com... With this i say it should be 18 to drive, most teen the hit the road in the u.s 17 die in crashs, is this not reason enough to protect the people of the future.
The Legal Driving Age Should Be Changed to 18 in the U.S.

<> Sorry, I was talking about Texas. I thought it was the same for all states. "If you pass the Texas learner permit test, you are issued with the instruction permit, which allows you to drive under the supervision of a licensed driver 21 years old or older who holds a valid Texas driver license. For students who are enrolled in a parent-taught driver education course, the instructor should be the person designated on the application form. " This clearly states that you can't be alone in a car with someone 21 or under. (. http://education4drivers.com...) < > It's not a lie, it's common sense. If the adult truly needs a job, it needs a job that can support a family (or themselves), right? Well working minimum wage 40 hours a week doesn't support a family/themself. It CAN however give a teenager a few extra bucks to spend with friends. I testify that your link is irrelevant to this topic. My contention is that teens take jobs that can't support a family or themselves when adults can't. < > Oh the irony, < > Where's your proof. I honestly think that this statement is complete ludicrous. A recession can't last forever and I've already proved why the recession is a "non-factor". < > Parents don't always teach their kids what they should. That's why we have laws. However, if your 18 (and driving) your parents can't ease you into the new responsibilities, your out on your own. So you won't have to ask your parents for anything. *****A reminder to my opponent, by taking this debate he agreed with the terms I stated in the first round including the one about him not posting any arguments in the latter part of round 4. ***** CONCLUSION: My opponent has based his argument off of ludicrous theories and no evidence. I have based mine off of common sense and caution. Most accidents are caused by "avoidable errors" and changing the driving age to 18 won't change that because they'll still be new. My opponent has conceded to some of my points and inadequately refuted the others. He has no evidence to back up his refutations and I have refuted all of his.
The Legal Driving Age Should Be Changed to 18 in the U.S.

Ah I see were your coming from but its not that smart for Example: and you're not even allowed to drive with people 18 and under that is a lie, and further more theres no proof what so ever in your arugment. I have proof that this is a lie: http://mva.state.md.us... Without the teenage workforce restaurants, ice cream shops, and grocery stores would be well under-employed. This is another lie that you have not proof of,in just one state 533,000 lost their jobs in november, now if your saying north carolina has alot of Mc,D's for all of these people and probly 200,000 more teens then be my guest but its not. http://www.businessweek.com... This is a lie again without proof: basing a long-term law off a short-term problem is stupid. The recession isn't going to last forever It will if gas is still used in 4 years from now and that problem isnt going to be always that, teens are dieing every day . You say your limited with a permeit well thats the point your parents should teach you, so if you have your permeit your going to eventally have to ask your parents and they will sit there and tell you what your doing wrong.