BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay's should be able to marry

I am pleased that PRO has posted this round!!! Rebuttals: "Same-sex marriages are currently not permitted under Australian federal law. Although same-sex couples in de facto relationships have had most of the legal rights of married couples since July 2009, there is however no national registered partnership or civil union scheme. Public opinion polls in Australia consistently show majority support for same-sex marriage, yet political and legal opposition to it has stymied a number of recent attempts at state and federal level to legislate for "marriage equality", which would require amending the federal Marriage Act." PRO fails to understand that his resolution says "Gay's should be able to marry" although his resolution is grammatically incorrect the only fault is that instead of 'Gays' he uses 'Gay's'. So it is correct to assume that they mean 'Gays should be able to marry'. I have already given definitions for marry(1) and marriage(2) which I am debating by. PRO argues that same-sex marriage should be allowed, but does not argue that 'Gays should be able to marry' as his resolution says. Due to the definitions of marry and marriage that I have already given PRO is not making an argument supporting this debate's resolution. #1 https://www.google.com... (The first definition) #2 https://www.google.com... (The first definition) Vote CON!!!!!!
Gay's should be able to marry

Same-sex marriages are currently not permitted under Australian federal law. Although same-sex couples in de facto relationships have had most of the legal rights of married couples since July 2009, there is however no national registered partnership or civil union scheme. Public opinion polls in Australia consistently show majority support for same-sex marriage, yet political and legal opposition to it has stymied a number of recent attempts at state and federal level to legislate for "marriage equality", which would require amending the federal Marriage Act. Should marriage only be between a man and a woman, or are same-sex attracted people being denied the right to have their unions honoured by church and state in a moderm society which should recognise long-term commitment in relationships, regardless of sexuality? What are the social, political, legal and religious considerations in the same-sex marriage debate? A balanced range of opinions from key commentators is presented in this book
Gay's should be able to marry

I am displeased that PRO has forfeited this round and hope that he does not forfeit next round and that they will post an argument next round. As PRO has not yet made an argument, I cannot make rebuttals, but I will further explain my argument. As the definition of marry is, as I said last round, " Join in marriage."(1) and the definition of marriage is "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife."(2), gays are not able to marry people of the same sex. A couple of the same sex cannot be husband and wife, since they are the same sex. I will further explain this by the definitions of wife and husband below. Wife: A married woman considered in relation to her husband.(3) Husband: A married man considered in relation to his wife.(4) Therefore since gay couples have the same sex they cannot marry, there have to be different sexes for the marriage to occur. Now, since gay people cannot marry due to the very meaning of the word 'marry' we come to the conclusion that the resolution is unclear and that since gays cannot marry people of the same sex they "should not be able to marry" people of the same sex. #1 https://www.google.com... ( The first definition) #2 https://www.google.com... ( The first definition) #3 https://www.google.com... ( The first definition) #4 https://www.google.com... ( The first definition) Vote CON!!!!!!
Gay's should be able to marry

Burden of Proof is on PRO, but I will bring up sufficient evidence for my arguments. I debate that gay people should not and are not able to marry people of the same sex (according to the definitions given below). Marry: Join in marriage. (1) Marriage: The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. (2) #1 . https://www.google.com... (The first definition) #2 . https://www.google.com.... (The first definition) Vote CON! !
Should we celebrate Halloween

I don't know why my opponent forfeited, but I hope it is nothing serious. Well, since my opponent forfeited I think I'll keep to my arguments with some small additions. There is no reason why we should keep halloween with all its pagan and religious ties. Although I guess I can understand why people like the "evil" and "scary" themes I don't see why we can't just turn it into a day to scare or prank people. The whole "demons from the other" world can just be left. It would still be essentially the same expect with a different name and it won't confuse toddlers. Of course I don't think halloween it this great threat to society, but I think we should just drop the pagan stuff. I mean some people so believe in "magic" and have dark magic "cults" where people do actually get hurt. Like it is now halloween make these things seem a little more acceptable. It makes children more eager to try it out, just in case they are a wizard. Also, dropping the pagan ties we allow children from religious families to join in in the fun. I know some of them do, but halloween is against most religions and I know atheists will say that if "dumb religious people" don't want to join in we don't need to change it for them, but those children did not chose in which families they were born into and it just causes conflict for them. In conclusion, I think we should not celebrate halloween and that we can just create a new holiday which is essentially the same without the pagan and religious ties. It will still be fun and religious children can join in too without having to deal with conflict from their families.
Should we celebrate Halloween

Yes, but it can easily be changed to something that is not as dark, but still allows you to dress up as your fav character. Plus most of the time people tend to dress up as scary, not as their fav character. I still think Halloween does 'cause harm to toddlers and the "dark" part of it can easily be taken away and just turn it into a dress up, eat sweets and prank people day. Why do we need to keep the religious and pagan ties?
Should we celebrate Halloween

Firstly, although I'm a Christian I won't be using Christian arguments against it. Ok, on to the debate. Most people think Halloween lore is about when creatures from the "evil" world comes to our world. I have even heard that it the "Devil's Birthday". Although its comes from religion and is supposedly tied to the pagan festival,"Samhein" Although Halloween may not really be bad, the point is that is usually seen as when the "evil" comes into the world. Now, I understand that grown ups probably will not see anything in it, neither teenagers, but young toddlers are also exposed to it. They won't understand its more of a joke. They don't understand that its just a fun night. They may start associating "evil" with candy and fun. Maybe a bit confused as to why are the supposedly "evil" things welcomed. Now, you and I both know that the things are not really evil. They are just jokes and fun, but toddlers don't. They also know "evil" as stealing, violence so on. So, they see this "evil" as fun or maybe they become a bit confused. Also, what about rituals and sacrifices. Impressionable young people start to see it as something that is not viewed as wrong by society although this is probably not as big. My point is that is controversial. Toddlers will have trouble really understanding it and its not that hard to replace it with something that is also fun.
longer curfews

I do not agree with this debate just because if your curfew is @ 10 and you want it to be @ 11 what could possibly happen within an hours time? something could happen in the middle of the day so what is the difference between 10 and 11? in Tennessee the curfew for new drivers under the age of 18 is 11. So what's the difference within an hour? this debate is not for "parties" it is about the curfew and what's the difference within a little while?
longer curfews

No man, no. the new drivers on the road have already proven themselves aboout how well they can drive by recieving their licences. how can you disagree with this i would've figured someone like you would like yo have stayed out later than a set period of time. say for saturday, it's already 10 and you need to go home but theirs this rockin party at 10:30 and you really want to go. but you can't because you have to go home. so do you or do you not agree???
Lying/Cheating is ALWAYS Wrong

There were some good points by the Con and I seem to be an underdog in this one but heres my response. You say lying/cheating is not always wrong but by definition of the word wrong it will always be wrong. 1. Wrong is defined as not correct or true. -source Google https://www.google.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com... 2 : not right or proper according to a code, standard, or convention : improper 3 : not according to truth or facts : incorrect The key is in the definition of the word wrong and by definition it will always be wrong. Now does make sense to lie in some cases, well of course it does, but thats not the question. The question is, is it wrong and the answer is always yes because lying and cheating are not correct and true and if something is not correct or true it has to be wrong by definition of the word wrong. So no matter how helpful a lie or cheating is it will always be wrong. If you posed the question that lying/cheating is nver helpful then you would be correct.
Lying/Cheating is ALWAYS Wrong

The Morality in DeceptionI will be arguing that lying/cheating is NOT always wrong. In todays society, social structure is everything. The general stability of our society today is caused in large by people being ‘good’. The word ‘good’ is simple, however it encompases a suprisingly large catagory of human actions. These include things such as truthfulness, selflessness, kindness, and so on. All throughout our lives, we have been taught to strictly be ‘good’, and that is we are to never stray from that path. Should we stray from this, we are to be punished. This is not only enforced by our parents, or mentors persay, but also society as a whole. Be as it may, what if one was to ‘lie’, or ’cheat’ in a good way, or rather a way that benefits more than the culprit themselves. My own belief is that while ‘lying’ or ‘cheating’ as a whole can be categorized as ‘bad’, there are certain sub categories within the one that can be of mutual benefit to all. The idea that ‘lying and cheating is always wrong’, is absurdity. There are indeed times when one individual may become conflicted in any given situation because they believe in that moment, that were they to lie all would be solved in a justified manner. In a more specific approach, how would you respond in the unlikely event that a terrorist approached you, and said he would kill you on the spot if you were american. Of course you are going to start frantically denying that you are american, thereby lying, and cheating the man. The liar is simply doing so to prevent his own doom. Is that wrong? As were the wise words of Brian Fantana, nope. In terms of cheating in a competitive aspect, it is usually unjust. The only remotely possible way to cheat in a game or competition and still keep your honor, is in the instance that the person whom you are cheating, is cheating as well. In doing this, are not simply making the competition fair once more? All of this goes back to to the classic rule that is well known by anyone who grew up with a sibling. The quote “Don’t hit back!”, said by every multi childbearing parent ever, means simply that if someone either physically or mentally attacks you, ignore it and the issue will resolve itself. While this quote seems reasonable, the idea it encompases is highly contradictory, as it basically instructs you to remain idle while being harassed. So, when someone is cheating you, should you cheat them back? The answer is unclear. While I do not condone lying and cheating, I do believe it is an inevitable part of human nature. For the most part, cheating someone has morally negative effects, however there seems to be some instances when it can be reasonably justified, whether someone is preserving their own, or others safety and well being, or even if they are just evening the playing field. The bottom line is this, I lie, and you lie. If you said you weren’t a liar, you would be most certainly lying all over again.
are video games better than board games

Sorry for responding so late; I am swamped with finals and tests right now so I'll keep my argument short. First of all, you didn't provide any actual evidence for any of the things that you stated. Who knows how reliable your studies are compared to the studies of those by professionals? In addition, you have failed to argue against any of the points that I made. This debate is about board games vs. video games, not about whether or not video games are beneficial. You made no point against board games this round, and therefore I extend all my arguments. Furthermore, many of your points are invalid. Your first point, for example, suggests that playing video games must be good just because it is debated just as much as other good but controversial topics. Aside from the obvious fact that novels aren't really debatable, one cannot prove something's "goodness" based on other things it has no relation to. Especially in this situation, your generalizations are too vague to make any sense. Finally, against the argument in your last paragraph, one could argue that there are many things that have those benefits, not just video games. For example, sports would be an even better way of improving those skills. [1] But while video games are generally mindless, like I stated in my first argument, board games are more educational and social. Therefore, there is no other option but to vote con. Sources: [1] http://truesport.org...
are video games better than board games

Sure Video games to some people is a waste of time but Whether playing video games has negative effects is something that has been debated for 30 years, in much the same way that rock and roll, television, and even the novel faced similar criticisms in their time. Purported negative effects such as addiction, increased aggression, and various health consequences such as obesity and repetitive strain injuries tend to get far more media coverage than the positives. I know from my own research examining both sides that my papers on video game addiction receive far more publicity than my research into the social benefits of, for example, playing online role-playing games. However there is now a wealth of research which shows that video games can be put to educational and therapeutic uses, as well as many studies which reveal how playing video games can improve reaction times and hand-eye co-ordination. For example, research has shown that spatial visualization ability, such as mentally rotating and manipulating two- and three-dimensional objects, improves with video game playing.
haha

"homeless men make more money than lacrosse players" Q. How much money do lacrosse players make? A. Professional lacrosse players get paid depending upon the number of years in the league. The average pay is $20,000 dollars for the year. [1] Q. How Much Money Do Homeless People Make by Begging? A. The amount of money a homeless person can make by begging can vary. It would depend on what the homeless person was doing to beg for the money. Some homeless people perform to earn money. Some others will sit on the sidewalk and just hope that somebody gives them money. There are also many homeless people that will stand in the streets and beg for money from passing cars. It is impossible to know how much money each individual homeless beggar will get. [2] [1] http://www.ask.com... [2] http://www.ask.com...
The United States needs to be a bit more Socialist

I am not saying the uNITED States should be socialist like to the defintion of Socialism you find in a dictionary or academic collegiate specificity, Not at all, All i mean is we move the arrow a bit to the left, Just a bit, So we look more like Canada, We have gun control in a reasonable measure not the extreme of allowing crazy people easy access, And leting angry people to walk around with machine guns on streets, Also reform medicare so it covers everyone it will raise taxes a bit but its an incremental change not a radical destruction or construction, Just a bit of modification.
Hairdressers are stupid

===> INTRO <=== My opponent has called on me to apologize however, if anyone is guilty of poor conduct, surely it is my opponent for instigating a debate in which she specifically ASKS for evidence that hairdressers are stupid, only to cry foul when I attempt to do so! As I said earlier, my arguments were not intended as personal attacks. I am only supporting my case. I will not apologize for their content, however, I do sincerely apologize for any offense they may have caused. I want to stress that I DO NOT think that ALL hairdressers are stupid, but again, this is not required in order to uphold the proper interpretation of the resolution. ===> REBUTTALS <=== ----> "[M]y opponent has stated that it doesn't take year to learn how to use scissors. If this is so then can he tell me what fingers hairdressers hold their scissors in and what is the movement made?" Roughly stated, my opponent's argument runs thus: 1) Difficult tasks require specific technical knowledge. 2) Cutting hair requires specific technical knowledge ::. Therefore, hairdressing is a difficult task. This is a fallacy known as affirming the consequent.[1] If we knew a priori that hairdressing is a difficult task, given the first premise, we could conclude that it requires specific technical knowledge. However, this is not true in the reverse. Moreover, my opponent could simply *tell* me how to hold the scissors and what motion to make. If she were to do this, I would learn in a matter of minutes, thus negating her point. ===> ARGUMENTS <=== CON has committed yet more of the errors that characterized her 1R. She has not refuted any of my points. Extend all arguments. ----> CONCLUSION The resolution is AFFIRMED, thank you and vote PRO. -- References -- 1. http://www.fallacyfiles.org...
Hairdressers are stupid

However I would not appreciate the fact that he has called me stupid, when he does not even know me and I believe he should apologise for this. He has not made it clear why he thinks that hairdressers are stupid, but only feels that he has to moan about my spelling and punctuation errors. Yes I know that I do not always type correctly, but this has nothing to do with this debate, I do try very hard the best I can to try and do everything correctly, but sometimes this isn't good enough for people. Carrying on with my argument, my opponent has stated that it doesn't take year to learn how to use scissors. If this is so then can he tell me what fingers hairdressers hold their scissors in and what is the movement made? Yes I am a hairdresser and I am sick and tired of being called stupid, and I would like to know why, if my opponent cannot give a valid reason and just pick on everything I have done wrong that has got nothing to do with the debate, then I would kindly ask him to terminate the debate.
Hairdressers are stupid

Everybody considers hairdressers as stupid,I believe that this is wrong, hairdressers are very imaginative, some people do not seem to understand that it requires alot of effort to use sissors and some people go to college to train for 4 years! I think That this is a id remark and it is only used becuase hairdressers focus mainn hair and people think that that makes them airheads.
Married couples with children should not have to pay income tax

Married couples with children should not have to pay income tax because they are supporting and providing for another person in addition to them selves. This would help prevent and reduce the use of govt services. Single people with no children should pay the lions share of income tax. They have to provide for no one other than them selves. This would also encourage and promote the concept of marriage and the family unit. This is an opening statement. I will wait for my opponents rebuttal to make any specific arguments for this idea based on my opponents response.
Resolved : Guitar Hero is Easier to Play Than Rock Band

To start, I'd like to re-state the resolution: "Guitar Hero is Easier to Play Than Rock Band. " Since my opponent hasn't provided any definitions to clarify who's arguing what, I will do so: Guitar: "a stringed musical instrument with a long, fretted neck, a flat, somewhat violinlike body, and typically six strings, which are plucked with the fingers or with a plectrum. "(1) Hero: "a person who, in the opinion of others, has heroic qualities or has performed a heroic act and is regarded as a model or ideal: He was a local hero when he saved the drowning child. "(2) Rock: "a large mass of stone forming a hill, cliff, promontory, or the like. " (3) Band: "a musical group, usually employing brass, percussion, and often woodwind instruments, that plays esp. for marching or open-air performances. " (4) The term "play" is perhaps the most ambiguous of all, and needs to be clearly and specifically defined. Since my opponent hasn't done so, then I will: Play: "a dramatic performance, as on the stage. " (5) Easy: "free from pain, discomfort, worry, or care: He led an easy life" (6) . .. So, thanks to the definitions I've provided, we can easily discern that a "guitar hero" is essentially a person who's regarded as ideal, and has a guitar; "rock band" is simply a musical group consisting of a large mass of stone. My position is essentially that it's more burdensome to make a play about a band whose members are large stones, rather than a play about a hero who uses a guitar. Now that I've clarified what's being debated, on to the actual debating process: A play with inanimate objects in a band as the protagonists probably wouldn't do as well as a play about a hero who features a guitar. The play about rocks is pretty much just a bunch of stones on a stage with instruments painted on them -- I don't think many people would find that entertaining, which means that this play wouldn't likely do very well. A play about a hero with a guitar is able to have a plot which goes in many more directions, much, much more dialogue, more action, humor, etc. , which would mean that this play would probably appeal to more people, which means it'd do better. Considering the play about rocks would, in all likelihood, do worse, the people who made it would face more of a burden due to the play than the people who made the play about the hero with a guitar. Also, seeing as the majority of people would likely prefer the play with the hero over the rock play, the people who view them would probably find "Rolling Stoned" (that's the name I've given the rock play) more burdensome than they found "Super Pete: The Heroic Adventures of Pete Townshend (the name I've given the play about a hero with a guitar. ) . .. that's all for me. I'll give my opponent the spotlight. (1) = . http://dictionary.reference.com... (2) = . http://dictionary.reference.com... (3) = . http://dictionary.reference.com... (4) = . http://dictionary.reference.com... (5) = . http://dictionary.reference.com... (6) = . http://dictionary.reference.com...