BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should be legal

My opponent responded to a major attack of mine by this: "Does that mean that heterosexual couples unable or unwilling to have children should not be allowed to marry?" My Response: My opponent missed my parentheses that says: Man + Women = Family (If wanted). however more in depth my opponent misses 2 things: A) The natural order is yes, making a family. However sometimes that doesn't happen. However the couple must be open to the idea of children. Therefore, marriage is still between a man and women because that's what makes children. B) Not everyone wants children, they have a right. However the institution says that may be willing if the time comes. "Marriage isn't a privilege. A privilege has to be earned. One is given the right to marry along with the right to make other legal contracts. I use the word "privilege" because that is the word used in the Constitution. From the way it is use, it can be fairly assumed that they meant rights. If it was a privilege, it wouldn't be bestowed upon all citizens." My Response: Marriage is indeed a privilege. Not everyone has the right to marry, like my polygamy example (which has gone unrefuted). This is the dilemma, that's why the government should either make the states decide or let the federal make a heterosexual clause. My opponent obviously doesn't know marriage laws, because he says that if it was a privilege it would be given to all citizens. It is and it isnt. If you are a man and women and you want to marry sure. If your lets says, a polygamists, or in love with your daughter, no you cant marry. =============================================================================== Voting Issues: 1) My opponent dropped his major argument, which I have also successfully refuted. (14th Amendment Argument) 2) Extend my point about polygamy and incest. 3) My opponent has failed to affirm the resolution on the fact that I have established the fact that marriage is indeed a privilege not a right. 4) My opponent failed to explain, or refute, my point about how natural doesn't make rights per say. 5) Essentially, all my points can be extended while my opponent did adequately provide proof for the affirmation the resolution. I urge you vote con. Thank you ladies and gentleman.
Gay marriage should be legal

"My Response: Ok, my opponent makes a hidden contradiction with this statement. He said that something [government] must get everyone to agree, what makes a man a man and what makes a women a women. Essentially he is saying that this will answer the marriage question. First, he is disregarding culture as a factor in this. Secondly, he makes the assumption that sex has to do with marriage. BINGO. He has found it. The role of marriage is not simply being in love with each other. Its to raise a family, which would be put into society. Man with man and women with women don't reap natural children. It undermines the natural law of marriage. I.e. Man + Women = Children. Now, coming to the end of my response. Link this to my opponents argument. He wants someway of defining sex and correlating it with marriage. My above formula does. Therefore, marriage is between a man and women. Thats how the government must define it." Does that mean that heterosexual couples unable or unwilling to have children should not be allowed to marry? "My Response: He ignores #1, so extend this. He then says #2 is a leap. He doesn't get my argument then. If my opponent defines marriage based on sexual orientation, which according to him is a natural process, then if im born naturally violent, then the government must make special rights for me as well (Universalize). He then says I'm using emotion for my 3rd response. Not at all, again I'm universalizing my opponents action. I.e. legalizing gay marriage. As I have previously said, incest is a sexual disorder. Therefore, if you universalize my opponents action, the government must make provisions/rights/privileges to them as well." Marriage isn't a privilege. A privilege has to be earned. One is given the right to marry along with the right to make other legal contracts. I use the word "privilege" because that is the word used in the Constitution. From the way it is use, it can be fairly assumed that they meant rights. If it was a privilege, it wouldn't be bestowed upon all citizens.
Gay marriage should be legal

"My Response: My opponent never explains how it makes sense. My opponent jumps from simple rights to then gay rights. I have already explained that they have rights they can both marry the opposite sex. My opponent arrives at a conclusion, again with no warrant." I have already explained why defining current rights regarding marriage as both sexes having the right to marry members of the opposite sex (as opposed to a man having the right to marry a woman and a woman having the right to marry a man) is insufficient. One has to define and then get everyone to agree upon what makes a man a man and a woman a woman in order to enforce the idea of an opposite sex. "My Response: I have 3 responses. 1) The government doesn't define sex, it defines what MARRIAGE is. 2) My opponent seems to feel that since it's natural/of what he or she feels, then the government must protect it. This is totally false. If I was naturally born a violent person, does that mean that I get privileges from the government? 3) Ok, what about polygamists, should they get protection too. What about incest (which is a sexual disorder, probably linked to genes) should that be legal too. My opponents arguments lead to slippery slopes. If the government, according to my opponent, does not have the right to define marriage as between a man and women, then groups the above will look for "Protection" as well." Number 2 is quite a leap. I never said anything of the sort. I was merely trying to get you to define sex. Furthermore, you are getting dangerously close to an appeal to emotion. Polygamy and incest are not the topics of debate. Also, I only used the word "privileges" because that was the word used in the Constitution. We are really talking about rights. I just don't understand how you can fail to see that the 14th amendment applies here. I'll make it a syllogism for you: 1. The 14th amendment prevents states from abridging the privileges of citizens. 2. Marriages is one of the aforementioned privileges. 3. Laws banning gay marriage abridge that privilege and are therefore unconstitutional. What is so hard to understand?
Gay marriage should be legal

Concerning your request for clarification, I am not saying that the federal government should make it explicitly legal for homosexual couples to marry. That is not what governments generally do. They don't say what is legal, just what is illegal. My argument is that not only should the federal government never amend the Constitution to bar homosexual couples from marrying, but that it is furthermore unconstitutional, unjust, and illogical for states to make gay marriage illegal or otherwise "define" marriage as between individuals of the opposite sex. I find it hard to understand how you could not see the connection in my syllogism. It is very simple. Men have the right to marry women, and women have the right to marry men. If you agree that men and women should have equal rights, it logically follows that men should have the right to marry men and women to marry women. This simply gives men and women the same rights. You try to say that the right is given to both men and women to marry individuals of the opposite sex. It seems to me that that interpretation is quite full of problems. What about transgender individuals, both pre-op and post-op? How exactly does the government define sex? Is it defined by sex chromosomes, reproductive organs, or what the individual feels his/her sex is? I realize that the 10th amendment states clearly that powers not specified by the Constitution as reserved for the federal government are for the states. I am not disputing this. States can make laws independently of the federal government. However, they can't make laws that are in violation of the United States Constitution. But by baning gay marriage outright, states have done just that. They are abridging specfic privileges of specific individuals (not couples), based solely on sexual orientation. Your first contention doesn't actually address my argument. As I said, I am not looking for the federal government to make a law saying that gay marriage is legal. I think that the federal government should just enforce the Constitution and keep states from making it illegal. I was actually looking for my opponent to make arguments as to why gay marriage to be specifically ILLEGAL.
Gay marriage should be legal

First, let me say that I am only interested in debating those who are willing to devote sufficient time to complete this debate. If you think you might not be able to post your arguments within the allotted time, please don't bother. I will argue that gay marriage, the legal union between a same sex couple, should be allowed. Let me state that I also believe that "civil unions" exclusive to homosexual couples are not sufficient. The term "civil union" should either replace "marriage" entirely for both heterosexual and homosexual couples in terms of the actual legal contract (leaving marriage as a religious and philosophical term only), or the term "marriage" should be used for all. My first argument can be given in the form of a syllogism: 1. A man has the right to marry a woman. A woman has the right to marry a man. 2. Men and women should have equal rights. 3. Therefore, men should have the same right to marry men as women do and women should have the same right to marry women as men do. The second argument I will give here is a little more in depth. I believe that the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits any law against gay marriage. The 1st section 14th amendment reads as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Laws against gay marriage clearly "abridge the privileges" of certain citizens. More specifically, that privilege is marriage and those citizens are those men and women who wish to marry those of the same sex. I have several other arguments, but I will first allow my opponent to speak.
Tigers should be able to run for president,

Are there reallOlympic sprint champion Florence Griffith Joyner died after suffering an epileptic seizure, according to autop Her husband, Al Joyner, bitterly criticized those who suggested that she took performance-enhanci what we always said: There's nothing there. So please, please, give us time to grieve and just let my wife rest in peace." The Orange County Sheriff-Coroner's office found that the only
Llamas are Omnivores

I do not "refuse" to accept anything. If it were true, I would accept it. However, I've proven through multiple sources that Llamas are herbivores, and don't eat meat. Good for you opponent. You've proven Llamas have the ABILITY to eat meat. But here's the deal, they don't USE this ability to eat meat. And that's exactly my point. My opponent states that hundreds of people are attacked by llamas each year (? ) We're not arguing this. We're arguing whether Llamas EAT humans, which is not true.
Llamas are Omnivores

According to Llama fact sheet, "Llamas do chew a cud, like cattle or sheep. But unlike cattle, llamas have only one stomach, which is divided into three parts. Llamas chew in a figure-eight motion and can spend hours at a time, just sitting and chewing their cud." This piece of evidence on llama biology proves that they have the ability to eat meat, because they have only one stomachache which is not seen in tylopoda (camels cows, sheep). They do share the process of eating cud which is food that is digested multiple times. "Cud is a portion of food that returns from a ruminant's stomach in the mouth to be chewed for the second time" (Wikipedia). Now that we have gone through the evidence of llama biology based on evidence we can conclude that llamas have the ability to eat vegetation and meat. The Problem is that my opponent refuses to accept the cases of millions of people who are attacked by llamas each year! More than bear attacks which range in the lower hundreds. Llamas are Hideous creatures which deserve nothing but the whip and the blade of the axe! http://www.youtube.com... http://www.mefeedia.com... The answer to all social problems is genocide of these foul demons. "Llama is the opium of the masses" Karl Marx (The Communist Manifesto)
Llamas are Omnivores

The problem of her argument is simply that llamas can eat meat. But there is a huge propaganda industry run the the Us Government in order to destroy dissent and force everyone into this religion that llamas can't meat. This manipulative tool degrades the llamas which simply want to live in the arctic fighting polar bears alone away from the from the evil capitalist who want to cut down the ice trees in which they get there apples. Llamas shouldn't be viewed as a mindless beast who eats grass all day like the cow. Our culture is opposed to llama's and llama rights. We can't punish people for killing dogs because llamas are more intelligent and have a complex social organization called "whoever eats the most grass survives" It is a rational animal and determines ultimately the fate of human society. Once me and my friend Joe Where walking down the through the evil forest forest (things fall apart) when we saw a llama with a dead big black grizzly bear in his mouth. He was chewing away fast like the 800 pound bear was a chew toy. The Llama stared at us with his eyes wide open like the lens of a camera. He instantaneously flung the bear at a 30 feet away tree which snapped right in half through the trunk. The llama ran towards us with the speed of a cheetah and some combination of spit and blood drooling out of its mouth. I saw the teeth sharper than any lion, no molars to speak of! Only bloody steel knives teeth! He leaped into the air and riped out Joe's heart which errupted into a bloody water fountain. "Stop , I cried don't kill him! " The llama growled at me in a hysteria of anger. Then I picked up a rock and chucked at it's face that was when all hell broke loose. .. I arrived at the hospital barely alive, with 4 missing fingers, torn up legs which looked like like crunched up paper,and bite marks everywhere! The reason why I had survived was that a band of hunter gatherers had taken it out with a silver arrow. They hunted the wild dark llamas in the tropical forests. Anyway that is irelevant because I had to get over 9000 stiches. That is why I advocate mass genocide against all Llamas, especially the Dark Llama foul heathen! Voters my real life personal experience is enough justification than any scrap of evidence. That is why I refuse to even show you a picture of my self and the bite marks. VOTE against LlAMA TYRAnTS AND Fascists. VoTE FOR gENOCIDE against the carnivorous Llamas!
Llamas are Omnivores

Llamas are Herbivores. "Llamas graze on grass and a variety of available plants. They are not especially picky, and can be fed various farm products and mixes that include corn silage, alfalfa and bromgrass." [BrightHub] No meat there. " Llamas eat grass hay, and sometimes grain. Alfalfa grass can be a little rich for them if they're on a steady diet. It's hard to get a llama to lose extra weight once they've put it on." [Llama Factsheet] No meat there. "Llamas eat grass, hay, and grain, and as browsers, also like bark and twigs. For treats they love cut up apples and carrots" [graustarkllamas] No meat there. May I ask for your source about Llamas eating rats, snakes and humans?
absolute power corrupts absolutely

Greetings to my opponent. The only way absolute power will be corrupted is that when it is gained, gained by people. I will argue that people corrupt power, not the other way around. Maybe it’s the absolutely corrupt are the ones who seek absolute power. There’s a filtering process in the community where the ambitiously corrupt and power-hungry people seek higher authority, where they can act out their need for absolute control or tyranny. People aren't perfect. Corruption is in our nature. because we are human. Some People corrupt themselves and are willing to do anything to achieve their goals. But let's take a look, are all people corruptible? What about Oprah Winfrey, regarded one of the most influential [1], most powerful [2] woman in the world, with a worth of over 1 Billion USD. She used some of her money to donate to the needy, even built a schoo worth 40 Million for African children [3]. She used her power and wealth to become stronger and help people, I don't see corruption there. Now, since I can see that we're both Catholic, we see God as the almighty and the all-powerful. He created the universe and created us in his image. He is God. He has absolute power. But is he corrupt? Corruption is defined as a state of being corrupt, which can be guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity or crooked [4]. But, again I ask, is he corrupt? Of course not. Since God created everything around us, created life, meaning everything only exists because of God, then the very idea of corruption is a creation of God. As I said, many people have this bad desire to get power. Is God fighting to stay in power? Does God need to practice dishonest practices, does He need to bribe? Is he a crooked being who lacks integrity? No, an all-powerful being would not need to do these things. Since he is, after all, God. He can overcome that corruption and problems. He has infinite power more than we can imagine.Thanks, goodluck to my opponent in the next round.SOURCES USED:[1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk... [2] http://education.ezinemark.com...[3] http://www.guardian.co.uk...[4] http://dictionary.reference.com...
HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GLOBAL WARMING

deforestation? and yes deforestation is done by us... plants produce oxygen...and we breathe oxygen so we need plants! no one should cut down plants and trees and everything. ok..totally new debate topic.. thats like me starting a debate over who will win the 2008 election and then coming off saying "no one should eat animals! they are living beings like us too!" ( i am 100% not vegan, but this is just for example) you had your opening argument WE RE RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS ACCELERATION...DEFORESTATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS ....UNCONTROLLED POLLUTION ok thats just fragments and crazy talk and a lot of different topics in one opening argument.. if you wanted to debate over deforestation, then you should have had another debate topic. debate over what the topic is or don't debate at all. don't switch subjects again. but back to my argument "if u r are saying we are not causing it....then arent deforestation done by us...removal of plants is not done naturally!!!!" (it should be isn't...not aren't) and i agree with you about the plant thing.. but i'm debating the theory of human emmissions cause the current warming trend, which they don't. the debate isn't over whether deforestation causes global warming.
Abortion Defiles the Unspoken Rights of an Unborn Baby

Firstly, I must say that I am pro-choice but anti-abortion. I believe the pro-choice vs. pro-life battle is nothing but a "keep abortion centers open vs. close them down" war instead of properly educating the recipients for this medical procedure.My argument is that abortion defiles the unspoken right of an unborn child. In a world steaming with the word "equality" sometimes I feel that the recipients for equality are one-sided and that others are neglected. Unborn children are one of them.Their right to live is ripped away from them, but in a world full of the idea of "equal rights for everyone", where are their rights? Or are they not people at all?
Brian the Dog should be brought bacl.

O.k, I know you will just try to troll me. Let's see what you've got.A famous quote once said:Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.And I am an idiot. You are going down, buddy.1. What the hell is a BACL? A bourbon addicted crack lover? Or just Amanda Bynes? Thats the definition of BACL. 2. What kind of debate did you just start? HE'S A CARTOON DOG. And he's high about 50% of the time. Like all of Mexico. (Don't you judge me on that.)Brian was the type of character you can have a reassembalance to. He always did the b*tches. Literally. Remember when smoked that female dog on the racetrack? I tried to fap to that. But I didn't. Don't know if that matters.Brian had about two different attitudes. Not the normal horny or hungry most men have (if he doesnt have a stiff one, GET him a stiff one) but rather these two H's: High and hopeful. He is on 5 grams of crack in that one. Or a mushroom. Doesn't matter.I haven't even gotten started yet. Literally. I did that in five minuets. Don't play with the big kids until you are a big kid.Noob.
Christian morality (Pro) vs. Atheistic or Secular morality (Con)

[paragraph 1] I actually disagree with you saying christian morality is unchanging. The bible says not to lay with another man yet many christians and even churches as a whole are starting to accept homosexuality. [Paragraph 2] I find it funny that God is fine with killing millions in a flood and sending people to kill other people yet as soon as someone kills another person without God's approval that's just too far. You forgot the part where i said "this is my subjective moral code". I'm not going to force my subjective morality on anyone. I never claimed it was objective it is just my opinion. If majority of society agrees with it then that still doesn't make it objective. It just makes it an axiom. [paragraph 3] You think just because atheists or non-theists in general don't believe in any objective truth that they shouldn't follow any moral code? You don't need God to be a good person. Atheists know this is the only life they have and they aren't going to mess it up by not following rules. They agree to the rules so they live by them. It's existentialism. Atheists make their own reasons to follow rules. Are you forgetting the millions who've died in the crusades, spanish inquisition and the 30 years war? And you can't arbitrarily blame Mao, Stalin and Pol pot's mass murderings on their lack of belief in a God. That is asinine. You treat Atheism as a religion. As a belief. When It's a lack of belief. Free of religious dogma.