BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage should be declared illegal throughout America

The Defense of Marriage Act is only partially germane to the topic, seeing as we're debating in regards to gay marriage and not marriage between a man and a woman. My opponent brings no proof to evince the following:" a same-sex couple has different parental expectations than a traditional couple". What makes you say that? We are all dying to know and I'd especially like PRO to further explain the statement, since it's a heavy and deliberate insinuation. I've never heard of any parent of the LGBT community to impose their sexuality upon their child(ren). While it's more likely for children born of gay/lesbian parents to inherit the same preference, the domain of Genetics is still pretty fragile and we can't utterly ascertain that fact. Still, it doesn't provide you the right to gratuitously oppose gay marriage, since that would break the first amendment. Individuals cannot be artificially influenced to suddenly change their sexual physiology as regards sexual attraction. It is impossible for the media to change one's sexual preference. The world is also in constant demographic growth and we are certainly not going to suffer an overflow of homosexuals as my opponent implies, since heterosexuals continue to dominate the charts. The Civil Rights Movement caused the homonym act to be ratified and it is not in any way related to gay marriage. As the legalization of gay marriage is directly concordant with the first amendment (as I've previously mentioned), it is in fact a matter of rights, freedom and liberty. Again, my opponent uses false claims to support his false medical notions, saying that we lust because we are "greedy" and that is why we procreate. Gay marriage is not a threat to our survival, given the recent soaring scientifical breakthroughs that allow us to perform artificial insemination. While the latter may sound immoral, we are not here to question the process, rather the social paradigm that is gay marriage. In short, illegalizing gay marriage would not ensure our "survival"; in fact, it would only give the government another reason to infringe upon our rights.
Gay Marriage should be declared illegal throughout America

This debate seeks to identify whether or not Gay Marriage should be legalized.I SUPPORT the topic...Prerequisite Standards:1. Gay Marriage is defined as the legal bonding/commitment of a same-sex couple.2. No Religious views or affiliations are to be expressed in this debate.3. Both opponents will not use homophobic or discriminative slurs within their argument.I thank my opponent for accepting this debate, and I look forward to a pleasant experience.The Defense of Marriage Act, enacted in 1996 by President Bill Clinton, is a United States Federal Law institutionalizing marriage as the union between a man and a woman as husband and wife. A balanced marriage creates a nurturing and healthy environment for raising a child, in accordance to modern tradition and societal norms. However, a same-sex couple has different parental expectations than a traditional couple; these differentiated norms and values that fundamentally govern the upbringing of a child can negatively impact the child's understanding of sexual orientation. A 2001 study published in American Sociological Review suggested that children with lesbian or gay parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior. The United States, and all of humanity, is dependent on people's ability to procreate in order to survive. Otherwise, humans would eventually become extinct. By allowing same-sex marriage, children become more susceptible to homosexual behavior, resulting in the inability to procreate with a partner. Aside from ensuring procreation and the potential survival of the human race, marriage of the opposite sex exposes their children to emtional securities and advice that are unique to the gender of each parent. Without these preconceptions, a child's development can be negatively altered.Yet, prohibition of same-sex marriage is commonly percieved to be discrimination and a violation of Civil Rights. This may, at first glance, appear to be true, except the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not outlaw or reference any discrimination regarding sexuality, only racial, ethnic, national and religious minorities, and women. Thus, sexual orientation does not meet any of the five central criteria of this historically protected Act. The legalization of same-sex marriage is not a question of rights, freedom, or liberties, it is strictly a question of whether or not same-sex marriage instigates progress in a society, or if it poses as a threat to humanity's survival. Greed motivates the progress of society, and our greed to procreate and self-preserve is what ensures our survival. Gay marriage is a threat to our survival.
Why Global Warming Could Destroy Planet Earth

Thank you to my opponent for his statement above addressing his resolution: "Why global warming could destroy planet Earth".First off I need to say, I disagree that planet Earth would be destroyed. As far as Global warming I contend that our planet has been shown to fluctuate in temperature, so in as much as it warms it also cools(1). This is my only concession to the existence of global warming.Next, I would like to look at my opponents statements starting with: "Global Warming, as we know it, is killing planet Earth".This is a bold statement in that he ascertains that the planet Earth is alive and is being killed.As we know it is not alive, however I would not contest life exists on and within the Earth.All life could cease to exist on Earth and this would not mean the planet had been killed, it was never alive.."In the Arctic, many animals are going without food and having shelter. Without the glaciers and ice, animals that live in these areas will go extinct."I would contest that this is relevant to the debate and that it would not kill planet earth. The extinction of creatures in the wild is a naturally occurring event that has gone on since life started to reproduce, it is no evidence of global warming at all. (2) Unless you are saying it is a Mass Extinction. "Besides the Arctic, the rest of the world have had a vast amounts of negative impacts on their environment. In the United States, the Eastern Coast of America was hit with 70 degree weather in the middle of December. How does this happen?"Weather has fluctuated to extremes since it has been measured and recorded, was the heat wave in 1921 due to global warming too? (3)"If everybody just did their part in recycling and reducing the amount of energy used, this would not be an issue around the world."I challenge my opponent to make a sensible case from this statement. "Heat Waves, Droughts, Extreme Weather are all causes of Global Warming."This statement is unusual, please provide proof that heat wave, droughts and extreme weather cause global warming. To this point I would state that my opponent has not even begin to explain or defend his resolution "Why global warming could destroy planet Earth".Instead he has focused on a point of proving global warming exists, which in the nature of good will I have indulged.I would also suggest that my opponents arguments so far appear to have been hastily written and the due time & consideration required for a serious debate has not been given. 1 http://www.sciencedaily.com...2 http://palaeo.gly.bris.ac.uk...3 http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com...
Why Global Warming Could Destroy Planet Earth

First off, let me start off by saying sorry for not having my round two. This was going to be a three round debate but I accidentally clicked on four. Let's start with the topic at hand, Global Warming. Global Warming, as we know it, is killing planet Earth. For you who do not know what Global Warming is Global Warming is rise of average temperature in Earth's Atmosphere and oceans. From around the world, Global Warming is having different effects. In the Arctic, many animals are going without food and having shelter. Without the glaciers and ice, animals that live in these areas will go extinct. The retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice are constant effects of Global Warming. Besides the Arctic, the rest of the world have had a vast amounts of negative impacts on their environment. In the United States, the Eastern Coast of America was hit with 70 degree weather in the middle of December. How does this happen? This happens because of Global Warming. If everybody just did their part in recycling and reducing the amount of energy used, this would not be an issue around the world. Heat Waves, Droughts, Extreme Weather are all causes of Global Warming. Because of these various factors, Global Warming could be our downfall if we do not do our part. For more insight on the effects of Global Warming, check out these sources. SOURCES http://www.chevron.com...|pcrid|19965520129|pkw|global%20warming|pmt|p http://www.nrdc.org... http://www.ucsusa.org...
Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction

Wow... I'm incredibly sorry about my initial sources. I had the same debate with someone else, but he bailed. The old debate was automatically deleted, so I started a new one. I copy and pasted my previous opening statement from that page, and apparently the links didn't copy properly. Here are my actual sources: http://www.afscmeinfocenter.org... (this is the Rialto study my opponent mentioned) http://www.latimes.com... http://www.huffingtonpost.com... Getting on with my closing statement... Police body cameras are a step in the right direction for improving police practices. The evidence shows that police body cameras reduce the use of force and complaints levied against the police. Police body cameras would also be instrumental in protecting police officers against false allegations. In response to the point about victims and informants, my opponent has resorted to insults and anecdotal evidence (which hardly even relates to the point of traumatized victims anyway, as he was not such). Further, he has not supported his contention that cameras will offend traumatized victims with any evidence, just conjecture. My opponent seems to have a gut feeling that it is the case. Honestly, I can't see why a victim would be willing to talk with an LEO but be absolutely opposed to being on a body camera. This is what my opponent failed to prove. The footage would also be helpful in determining what exactly the victims initial responses were. What if they changed their story later on to help their case? My opponent is either failing to acknowledge or is downplaying the fact that discretion can be used poorly. LEOs have a lot of power. That power is meant to be held in check by their superiors. Just as you say discretion can be used to not enforce an unjust law, it can also be used in a corrupt or otherwise illegal manner. We should not give such massive amounts of power to LEOs and then refuse to supervise them and hold them accountable. Also, I will restate one of my previous points: the law enforcement hierarchy understands and respects the role of discretion. Your example of "a kid dropping his candy wrapper on the ground should be fined $1000 for littering" is, well, ridiculous. What police chief is going to look at that situation and demand swift justice? If he did, there would be riots.
Law enforcement (in America) should be required to use body cameras during civilian interaction

My opponent brings up the very valid concern of privacy. However, the issue may not be a prevalent as it appears. Firstly, my opponent seems to b concerned with the general public gaining access to body camera footage. He specifically mentioned the Freedom of Information Act. The FIOA has many exceptions; the general public is not entitled to all government records: "Exemption 7: Information compiled for law enforcement purposes that: 7(A). Could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings 7(B). Would deprive a person of a right to a fair trial or an impartial adjudication 7(C). Could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy 7(D). Could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source 7(E). Would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions 7(F). Could reasonably be expected to endanger the life or physical safety of any individual" The government has already considered the privacy of the general public. Simply put, I can't file an FIOA request to receive footage of DUI arrests for an arbitrary reason. If, for instance, I was a lawyer taking a case against an alleged malpracticing police officer, I could easily receive footage. http://www.foia.gov... In terms of informants and traumatized victims, they would not have to worry about this information becoming public for the reasons mentioned above. The police should be instructed to inform the public of the exemptions of the FOIA. In the example of the 7 y/o boy, special procedures are in place to protect and respect victims. In that situation, it seems highly unlikely that serious questioning would occur directly after the event. The first responders will not be trying to extract information. At the end of the day, this is a problem not with body cameras but a with policy. In regard to police officers and discretion; the hierarchy of law enforcement agencies understand the massive role that discretion plays. There is good discretion and bad discretion. The hierarchies need to evaluate LEOs on their use of discretion. Body cameras can be invaluable to preventing bad discretion. Your specific example displays a poor use of discretion. The old women has an illegal firearm, when she could have easily registered it. She could have an insidious motive for having motive for having an unregistered firearm. Should that weapon be used in a crime, it will be difficult if not impossible to trace. With the presence of a body camera, his supervisor could inform the officer of his mistake and make a positive change.
I am going to lick children, As the God asks of me

"In this troubled world we live in. Nothing seems to make sense. Many looking for the way to end it all. Sometimes this rope I am holding seems to be slipping, But I am going to hold on to the only way I know. " - Marvin Morrow There is a reason God created cute children. It is so that they could be licked by grown up men. What if a 4 year-old girl wants to be licked by a grown up man? Surely, To deny her of that would be a crime. And what if she licks a grown up man? It is only polite to lick her back. We must teach our children to be friendly with strangers and insist to be licked by them. Children who aren't licked are worth nothing. God's message is clear: There is no God but God, And the children of his shall walk the world he created seeking strangers to lick them.
Liam Neeson currently outdoes Chuck Norris on a "Bad A**" Scale

Hello, I'm looking forward to a great debate & I can't wait to see what my opponent has to say. To begin I will simply add in my main reasons. (This is a just-for-fun debate of course). 1. Chuck Norris is getting too old & overrated. For as long as I can remember I have always seemed to hear a Chuck Norris joke at least 3-5 times a week. This has been going on for years & years. I personally think the Chuck jokes have simply gotten too old & I feel like we need a "New Chuck Norris". I feel Liam is the perfect fit. 2. Liam Neeson has played more "Bad A**" roles on television (I will only name movies from 1990 to today) A. Danny Scoular in The Big Man B. Peyton Westlake in Darkman C. Rob Roy in Rob Roy D. Michael Collins in Michael Collins E. Jean Valjean in Les Mis"rables F. Qui-Gon Jinn in The Phantom Menace G. Charlie Mayo in Gun Shy H. Vasili Arkhipov in K-19: The Widowmaker I. "Priest" Vallon in Gangs of New York J. Henri Ducard/Ra's al Ghul in Batman Movies K. Aslan in The Chronicles of Narnia L. Carver in Seraphim Falls M. Bryan Mills in Taken N. Zeus in Clash of the Titans M. John "Hannibal" Smith in The A-Team O. Damon Pennington in The Next Three Days P. Dr. Martin Harris in Unkown Q. John Ottway in The Grey R. Admiral Shane in Battleship That's 18 movies that I personally would consider Liam to be playing "Bad A**" characters... Like I said, I'm looking forward to a great debate & I can't wait to see what my opponent has to say...
Legalizing Gay Marriage is Overall Bad Public Policy

I’ll take this little gem. Some Stipulations: My opponent needs to establish some sort of metric (a way to distinguish) good and bad public policy. I reserve the right to address/rebut that metric in any way I see fit.Because my opponent did not stipulate that I necessarily must argue exclusively from the conception of the con perspective he charted above, I further reserve the right to adjust accordingly.All DDO rules apply.I leave you with the wise words of Thomas Sowell:"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong."
Legalizing Gay Marriage is Overall Bad Public Policy

FIRST ROUND WILL JUST BE FOR ACCEPTANCE AND RULES ONLY I will be showing how redefining marriage to just two people regardless of Gender is bad public policy overall by showing all the potential harms and refuting the supposed benefits to society. CON must show how the benefits of legalizing gay marriage ,if there is even any benefits in the first place, would outweigh or at least equal the costs for legalizing gay marriage. These benefits can either involve how it would benefit gay couples or society as whole and just trying to refute my arguments . lastly, this debate will be about the "ought" and not the "is" regarding the constitution
We should be eating bugs

1. The human brain has a guilty consciousness and a built in system that knows right from wrong. Hence nightmares are a contrast from dreams, which resemble a conscious distortion. I have never dreamed of a nightmare telling me that I need to stop eating meat or start eating bugs. Therefore I'll take the brain's design of your ignorance of it. And you are somewhat right about the feces, I forgot to say "if it had healthy benefits". That was my mistake and I'll stand corrected for only that. 2. It does not matter to the human body as a whole as evident by 100 year old's that lived a life of drugs and junk food. Stress is the number one killer - frankly, eating things we enjoy counters the need for nutrition. Happiness produces chemicals which keep our body healthy. All the healthy diets and health plans are equivalent to people afraid of germs - it's people who are too stupid to realize that they don't need to cut all of this to achieve this - by doing so, they are jeopardizing their immune system in the first place. Sorry, your argument is the same fear-toting nonsense I see in all these books people make about what we should and should not eat as if it every bloody mattered in the history of mankind. It's just people messing with people's paranoia and making money off of it. Paranoia and stress kills us - not the delusions they make us believe. 3. Humans were not built on eating insects, hence they can live to 100+ without even eating "healthy" stuff. It's all about your mood keeping the right chemicals in your body and your movement. It's not what we eat - it's what we think as well as genetics. 4. Humans make it to age 100 without eating bugs, therefore your argument is a stink bug: crushing it still makes me want to vomit. You have never argued my points. You go back to bugs, when I have proven that bugs are not needed at all. Then you resort to paranoia, which renders your argument impractical.
We should be eating bugs

1. No, the argument here is that bugs are more economically responsible than large livestock and should be used as an alternative more frequently. Eating feces has been linked with problems such as "seizure disorders, cerebral atrophy, and tumors [...] mental retardation, alcoholism, depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, fetishes, delirium, and dementia" [1]. Eating bugs hasn't been associated with any medical disorders. 2. Nutritional value matters to the human body as a whole. If Con does not understand that fresh spinach has greater nutritional value than french fries or fried oreos, or that the number 5 has a greater value in itself than the number 2, then there is a deeper problem than arrogance here. 3. The information used was based on pound for pound production. Assuming evolution, humans were definitely built on eating insects. Another example: The production of 1 kilo of beef requires 22,000 L of water, 1 kilo of pork requires 3,500 L, and 1 kilo of chicken requires 2,300 L. For this reason and more, agricultural activities take up about 70% of our drinkable fresh water. The production of 1 kilo of crickets requires only 1 L of fresh water, again proving more environmentally responsible. 4. People eating other people and monkey brains is simply unethical, but that is a whole debate in itself. Some grasses are perfectly healthy to eat. There is little to no reason not to eat the edible bugs, and much reason in eating them. [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov... [2]
We should be eating bugs

1. So you're saying that if people could eat their own fecal matter if it was cheaper commerce, you'd argue it? Because that's all that you're saying "it's cheaper, therefore bugs". 2. Greater nutritional value? Not this again. Since when did nutritional numbers ever matter to the human esophagus? It can thrive off of things you wouldn't believe. There's no "greater value" - that's just the ploy. 3. Animals are many times bigger than insects, so the results you're finding is simply the result of dealing with bigger mass. It'll be a joke to do this anyways , when people still build mansions, towers, skyscrapers, or other "needlessly large sources". Humans simply were not built on eating insects. 4. People eating insects before does not mean eating insects should be a thing for humans. People also ate other people, monkey brains and plain grass.