BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals for religious reasons.

I want to remind you that this is based on subjectivity and then later reaffirmed by the Constitution. There is no way to deny that legislating religious freedom compromises the Constitution, and that is exactly what is being done. If your religious freedom impedes on another citizens right to life, liberty, or property, then it shall not be allowed. You have no right to someone else's property or their service, without their permission. To force a party to service you without their will is not an idea created on the basis of personal liberty. Your entire argument is preposterous and based around the assumption that if the federal government has the ability to do something, they should do it, which is certainly not the case. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was good in a moral sense, but not in a rights sense. No one has the inalienable right to your service without your consent, and there can be no federal entity that can force you to do a service, unless you commit a crime, which forces you to forfeit some rights. The statement based upon polygamy is also religious freedom, and there are quite a lot of polygamists in Utah, due to its high Mormon population. I find it easy to believe that our Supreme Court would do something unconstitutional, as they did in June during the gay marriage ruling. The 1st Amendment guarantees us all religious liberty. The entire point of rights is opportunity and the freedom to expand. You are not given an excess of rights because you will use them all, it is there because you should not be locked in. Not every religious person would deny service based upon any reason, whether it is religion or sexual orientation. There is no quick way of telling sexual orientation unless you are told directly. On the other hand, denying to make a cake due to you not agreeing with gay marriage is perfectly fine and is protected by the 1st Amendment. This is all a matter of religious freedom, something that is being compromised heavily in this country due to political correctness and the federal governments inability to leave people to their own desires, rather then legislating all of it. We here are not discussing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as it does not include homosexuals as a protected group. If it is your property, your materials, your service, then no one has the right to it unless you give permission. Also, the Civil Rights Act does not prohibit the denial of service due to sex. Sources: [1]http://www.legalmatch.com...
Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals for religious reasons.

To be clear, I intend on debating this in the realm of American politics. My first argument will address the two points which you mentioned in your acceptance. First, religious freedom is not applicable to refusing service. I agree that the First Amendment to the US Constitution does guarantee citizens the right to religious freedom. However, the United States Supreme Court had ruled that this does not extend to the practice of beliefs which may harm others or violate laws. In Reynolds v. United States, Reynolds was charged with polygamy. He argued that it was his religious duty as a Mormon to be polygamous and his right to religious freedom made any law against polygamy unconstitutional. The Supreme Court ruled against him, finding that religious freedom did not apply(1). I believe that this principle can be extended to apply to discrimination against homosexuals. An interesting part of the Supreme Courts decision read, in part, that if they allowed Reynolds to violate the law for religious duty, what was to stop someone from claiming that human sacrifice was a religious duty(1). If religious freedom is cited for allowing discrimination against homosexuals, what is to stop an organization such as the Klu Klux Klan from claiming that their religion compels them to discriminate and persecute black people? Just as one would not be allowed to cite religious freedom as a reason to refuse to serve a Jewish customer, one should not be allowed to cite religious freedom as a reason to refuse to serve a homosexual customer. Your argument claiming free trade is invalid. The government does have the ability to control if a service can or cannot be denied. This power was affirmed by the Supreme Court in Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. United States. The Heart of Atlanta Hotel refused to rent out rooms to black customers, in violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964(2). If the government has the power to force the Heart of Atlanta hotel to provide service, it has the power to require businesses to serve homosexual customers. Finally, I would like to be clear on one point. The company has the right to refuse to produce a certain product. For example, company's cannot be forced to make a wedding cake topper with two men. However, the company should be compelled to provide a wedding cake if a homosexual couple orders one. The product is exactly the same, only the client is different. A company should not be allowed to chose not to serve that person on the basis of sexual orientation. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 already made it illegal to refuse service to someone due to race, color, religion, sex, or national origin(3). Sexual orientation should be an included protection. The government certainly has the power to make it illegal. They just have to pass the bill. (1). https://en.wikipedia.org...(2)https://en.wikipedia.org...(3)https://en.wikipedia.org...
Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals for religious reasons.

I have accepted the debate challenge. I will be arguing on the premises of religious freedom, which applies more heavily to smaller businesses, as they are more family oriented and are generally more likely to implement religious ideals. I will also be arguing on the basis of free trade, which also amounts to government and its inability to legislate if service can or cannot be denied for any reason. Burden of proof is not shared, as there is no statistical evidence incorporated into this debate. I would use some sources though.
Businesses should not be allowed to refuse service to homosexuals for religious reasons.

I am arguing that no business should be able to discriminate against customers on the basis of the customer's sexual orientation. This should apply regardless of the business owner's religious and personal beliefs. Rules- -Burden of proof is on the pro. -Be civil -I would appreciate it if we refrained from debating schematics as I am inexperienced and would like my first debate to be about the issue and not any wording errors I may make in my inexperience. However, this is not a rule, merely a request. Format- Round 1- Acceptance Round 2- Pro Argument, Con Argument and Rebuttal Round 3- Both Argument and Rebuttal To be clear, I am not arguing that a business should be forced to sell "gay" products. I am simply arguing that any product which a business would sell to a straight person, the business should sell to a homosexual one as well.
Comedian Dave Chappelle Should Consider A Career in Architecture For Orphan Bunnies

Although I say this with great displeasure, it is my duty (chuckle*duty*chuckle) to announce the events that have affected jfmamstepsonpuppies, known to her imaginary friends as Ichiva, the poor, sexually confused female from La`assa, Region d' Obock, Djibouti. Sadly, the pastafarian post-doctoral pacific islander has been afflicted with slight bruising of the finger and was unable to write an argument in round the fourth. The communist who has a passion for abortion and Ralph Nader's political views was attacked by a bunny as she was considering a career in architecture for orphan bunnies. As you can probably tell, the bunnnies to not want architecture; they want the fingers of pastafarians who enjoy euthanasia and have names that coincidentally sound like problems women can have when spoken aloud. So please, vote in negation. Its for the children. Nuclear genocide. Poverty. Global warming. Caclcium deficiency. If you don't understand this argument, please look over my profile and read it again.
Comedian Dave Chappelle Should Consider A Career in Architecture For Orphan Bunnies

It seems my opponent has forfeited. Which leaves two options as to what has happened. (a) He can't handle my extreme and flawless arguments or (b) HE IS A TERRORIST AND IS PLANNING TO DESTROY THE WORLD!!!! Dear Santa that's bad! Therefore, it is IMPERATIVE that you vote AFF, because if you don't, you are supporting the actions of a person who is on the opposite side that you are on. WHICH IS VERY BAD.
Comedian Dave Chappelle Should Consider A Career in Architecture For Orphan Bunnies

O, girl. C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER! My opponent has made only one arguments to negate the resolution other than Dave Chappelle saying that he doesn't think he should build for orphan bunnies. However, contrary to m opponents RADICAL viewpoints, Dave was speaking a term in Yiddish that sounds EXACTLY like what my opponent CLAIMS that he said, however it actually means : "Hey, Judith. How was supper?" Which in no way supports my opponents side. Contention 365 (or 366): My opponent's argument is false, fallacious, and supporting the evil wizard from the Princess and the Frog movie. How? Because I didn't see the movie because my "opponent" deliberately sabotaged my viewpoint of the movie and made me not see it. If that's not worthy of voting against, I don't know what is. Contention 28 (or 29): DO YOU HATE PANTS? I SURE DON'T HATE babies. Contention U (and sometimes Y): Dave Chappelle invented the modern bunny. Dave chappelle IS the modern bunny. Dave Cappelle MUST be an architect. Deductive reasoning, my friend/enemy. Logical conclusion. Contention Realize (or realise): http://i73.photobucket.com... Here we can see former president George W. Bush taking a huge bite out of a kitten. The kitten population was soon wiped out. Do we want that to happen to bunnies do to their lack of buildings to hide in? Particularly ORPHAN bunnies? No, we do not. Unless you are a SERIAL KILLER! http://www.cs.cmu.edu... Contention crevasse: Due to my perfect flawless logic, I win by default. http://lgimages.s3.amazonaws.com... VOTE AFF OR THE NEGATIVE SPEAKER WILL BECOME A DICTATOR AND DESTROY US ALL WITH AN ASTEROID! AND OUR FATE WILL LOOK LIKE THIS http://www.emmitsburg.net... And according to Sonic the Hedgehog, "That's...NO GOOD". Please and thank you. Vote in affirmation.
Comedian Dave Chappelle Should Consider A Career in Architecture For Orphan Bunnies

Dave Chappelle once stated: "I should not consider a career in architecture for orphan bunnies". For this reason, I negate the resolution. My opponent stated that he "do not understand". While this quote sounds extremely stupid in this context, it means that my opponent doesn't understand anything, including the topic, which means I win. In contention 1, my opponent asks "isn't that all that matters". No. That is not all that matters. In the classic novel Go, Dog, Go by Dr. Seuss, it is stated that "Go, Dog, Go." This is referring to how bunnies everywhere should be set free, not be placed into architecture. Lastly, my opponent ended his case by saying Good day. Or night. As you can see, he is trying to pit these two normally peaceful groups against eachother. Soon, day and night will battle to the death. That sounds bad. ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< You're jealous.
Comedian Dave Chappelle Should Consider A Career in Architecture For Orphan Bunnies

O, boy. At the end of my opponent's last case, he claimed "Thank you for your understanding." I, however, do not understand, which means my opponent was lying about my understanding and mocking said lack of understanding. Therefore, he is a bad person who probably steals candy from children and those children from their parents and their parents from their jobs and their jobs from the economy. Therefore, my opponent hurts our economy with his LIES. Also, to further prove my point,: http://www.vampwriter.com... So you see, Contention 12: http://www.all4humor.com... That pikachu represents the destruction of bunny establishments. Only dave chappelle can build such snazzy architecture to protect the bunnies. Contention 13: http://angryalien.com... Bunnies can make delicious 30 second films, making them a substantial part of our economy and our hearts. And isn't that all that matters? Contention 14: AHHHHHHHH Contention 15: In an episode of Family Guy, Peter claims he needs "a jew". His need of a person who practices judaism represents bunnies' need of sturdy structures built by dave chappelle. Contention 20: http://homieq.deviantart.com... Contention: That is all. I urge you to vote in aff, to support bunnies everywhere and to go against the irrational hatred of bunnies. Good day. Or night.
Comedian Dave Chappelle Should Consider A Career in Architecture For Orphan Bunnies

I would like to ask all of you who are looking at this page to click the link my opponent has offered in his contention 1. It states: " ERROR – No thread with the ID you have specified exists. Perhaps it was just deleted, or maybe it never existed in the first place." This refers directly to my opponents case, meaning it does not exist. That means I win. Also, in a recent survey in the amazing country of Djibouti,it was found that "127% of inhabitants believe that Dave Chappelle should not consider a career in architecture for orphan bunnies, 2% said he should, and 26% were undecided." I have to say with sincere regret that my opponent, a liar, thief, and the sole cause of Global Warming and poverty, has stolen the rest of my case. Therefore, I am unable to provide a long argument. Thank you for understanding.
Comedian Dave Chappelle Should Consider A Career in Architecture For Orphan Bunnies

WOW. NEVER BEFORE IN MY LIFe have I ever seen such LIES SPEWED onto a keyboard which makes them appear on a computer screen. Contention 1: http://www.newgrounds.com... It seems that the good folk at newgrounds have noted our debate (def not me). Now, each comment on a forum represents a billion people who have seen it, so 10 BILLION people agree with me! And if that's not a vast majority, I. Contention 21: http://thisrecording.files.wordpress.com... Contention 22: http://www.funnyordie.com... Bunnies interviewed Oprah Winfrey in the mos high quality and realistic interview to date. http://www.concreteloop.com... Oprah interviewed Dave Chappelle The bunnies have interviewed Dave through Oprah, and he must repay them. How? By providing his services as an architect for their orphans. It's only SENSIBLE! How could you be such a Nazisupporting bafoon? Contention 33: http://www.vat19.com... Why did you look at that? You're gross. Contention 34: http://radiated5.files.wordpress.com... Killer Klowns from outer space, like ronald mcdonald in my last speech, love to eat bunnies. YUMYUMYUM. Therefore, Davemust build places to hide the orphans so the killer klowns can't eat them. I will end my speech by presenting the UNDENIABLE fact that my opponent is being so mayo. http://www.blogcdn.com... DO WHAT IS RIGHT!
Comedian Dave Chappelle Should Consider A Career in Architecture For Orphan Bunnies

That, sir, was a complete and udder logical fallacy of epic proportions. My opponents argument is an ad hominem in disguise and it's fallaciousness must be stopped. I will continue to argue without intentional non sequitor. I'm not sure what that means. Contention 3- Comedian Dave Chappelle pees whenever he does anything involving buildings. (http://blog.taragana.com...) Therefore, while in a career for architecture Dave Chappelle will constantly piss his pants, disturbing the bunnies. Contention 8?- Dave Chappelle does charity work for the homeless. (http://www.fandango.com...) The homeless eat bunnies. (http://www.thaindian.com...) Therefore, comdedian Dave Chappelle eats bunnies. Why would a bunny-eater help bunnies? I think YES! Contention 4- According to http://comedyspace.punchlinemagazine.com..., "everyone hates Hitler". Comedian Dave Chappelle is part of "everyone". Hitler is a bunny. http://humorpix.com... Therefore, Comedian Dave Chappelle hates bunnies. And Barack Obama, since OBAMA is Hitler. Contention- According to http://www.imdb.com..., "Giant demonic bunnnies will cause the end of the world". There is no reason to create homes for animals like that. Contention 7- According to the Huffington Post, 142% of all Americans believe that Comedian Dave Chappelle should not consider a career in architecture for orphan bunnies. Also, according to Barack Obama, "Bunnies suck. I f***ing hate those things. Also, Homie Q is bad". cough*vote for me*cough. Please. I haven't won yet.
Comedian Dave Chappelle Should Consider A Career in Architecture For Orphan Bunnies

Hello. I am in affirmation of "Comedian Dave Chappelle Should Consider A Career in Architecture For Orphan Bunnies". First points, yes? Contention Won: http://farm4.static.flickr.com... Here is an orphan bunny, clearly with no home. If dave chappelle were to design architecture for said bunny, the bunny would have a home, making the world a generally better place. Contention Too: LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITIES! http://img705.imageshack.us... Contention TWEE: BOUNCE BABY OUT THE DOOR I DONT WANNA SEE YOUR FACE NO MORE Contention Foore: http://www.newgrounds.com... In this song, deep inner thoughts are evoked regarding life and death and how good it would be if dave chappelle were to consider a career in architecture for orphan bunnies. Contention Fife: http://zedomax.com... Here Ronald Mcdonald is seen eating the limbs of ORPHAN BUNNIES by a wrecked building. Ronald was able to destroy the blding due to its poor architectural design. We need dave's help! Contention 6: There is somebody aptly named Dave Chappell (no E at the end) who is an architect. http://www.davidchappell.co.uk... IT CLEARLY IS IN HIS BLOOD! GENETICS! THERMO-NUCLEAR WAR! Contention 7: http://failblog.org... Contention 8: Contention 9: Dave chappelle once said, "I am Dave Chappelle". Well, said, Mr. Washington. Contention 10: George Washington once said "Oh no, I didn't say that, Dave Chappelle did." Contention 11: I once said "Oh, sorry. That was my mistake." Contention 12: http://obamaisliterallyhitler.tumblr.com... OMG Contention 13: This is an unlucky number. DON'T LOOK AT IT! Contention 14: Peter Piper picked a something. Because he realized that Comedian Dave Chappelle Should Consider A Career in Architecture For Orphan Bunnies. Contention 15: This is why I stand in Affirmation of this resolution.
I can take the highest scores by using my homework.

This debate has been on the list for several days, and I figured that I would perform the courtesy of taking this debate off of here, since, clearly, the instigator has no desire to do so. 1. The Request a. My opponent's request is, essentially, that his opponent help him to critique his homework; however, that is not what this website was designed for; my opponent has created an absolutely pointless debate in which neither competitor can argue, due to this being more of a 'study session' than a debate round; it is clear that my opponent has misunderstood the purpose of starting a debate, which is to exchange ideas, not to help someone to correct his homework. b. Though I have no obligation to do so, the best way I can see to help my opponent to revise his homework is to make a thread on the forums; if he chooses to do so, then he can not only receive a wider number of critiques from a diverse collection of minds, but he also would not have to worry about being on a deadline in which to make his next post; thus, I have fulfilled my burden of 'helping' my opponent, ergo you must vote Con. c. One problem that I see is that, when translating from Korean to English, my opponent's grammar became rather disjointed; it would seem that, without knowing Korean, any assistance that we could render my opponent wouldn't be used to its fullest potential, since Pro's first language is clearly not English; ergo, I believe that he would be better suited seeking help from his classmates, or from his teacher, since they would share a common language, making communication easier, critiquing more exact, and would produce a better final product, ergo a better final grade. d. For a more fulfilling intellectual experience, and for more practice with English, I would recommend that my opponent take one of his 12 debate topics, and start a debate on that; in doing so, he creates a far better experience for both himself and his future opponent, while further contributing to the purpose of the site; also, I believe that my opponent would be able to learn more through a stimulating debate than he would if we simply handed him advice and criticism on a silver platter; furthermore, actually discussing a topic (as opposed to asking for critiques) would serve to better Pro's skill in matters of logic, and would allow him to better develop his own ideas, thus allowing him to gradually rely less and less on outside criticism, which in turn would gradually increase the quality of his work. For these 4 reasons, I urge the Con vote. :)
I can take the highest scores by using my homework.

First, he or she should show direct arguments related to debate topic. Second, he or she should directly refute opponent's arguments. But he did not keep the rules anything. I should request he should directly point out the weakness of my homework and I should point out his arguments directly. a. I set up the topic that can divide Pro/Con clearly. In this debate, pro should prove that the homework have worth to take me highest score, and the con should prove the opposite. Dear members in www. debate. org. What makes you debate? You can find books and articles to get the same thing that you saw in the debate. And you can see many debate videos. You can see many speakers who have more experience and talent in debate. But, every person have biased view. By using debate, they can contrast his/her view with others. And they have the chance to see themselves. Because of these reasons, this is also a debate. Just I use the matter - homework - to create this topic. b. I already got help from my Korean colleagues related to this homework. But I keep this debate. Why? Because more advice, more information will be useful to me. But, he does not just help my homework. If he thought this is not a proper debate, he should not accept this debate. But, once he should accept to become opponent, he should keep the rule of debate. 1st, he didn't show direct arguments related to debate topic. 2nd, he didn't directly refute opponent's arguments. c. He makes you wrong idea. Advice doesn't have to have fullest potential. You should not forget who will be charge of accepting advice. I will accept some reasonable advice, and I will oppose the other unreasonable advice. I have the English that can help me understanding advice by using English. But, he didn't give me any advice related to debate topic directly. So, he should be charge of this problem. And I already give him how he can point out my weakness. "You can pointing out anything, and everything that will prove that the homework have not worth to give me highest score. For example, you can pointing out the summary is too long or too short. You can pointing out my summary contain unnecessary things or does not contain necessary things. You can pointing out 'appreciative criticism' have many logical errors. Or you should pointing out my debate topic cannot fulfill the standard. " Dear members. Does you think this suggestion is reasonable to help managing debate. Doesn't you? d. Dear members. I already have the debate like his suggestion. So he gave me useless advice. That means his arguments are based on no evidence. . http://www.debate.org... I don't want to have more forfeit so I should finish this debate, but he just consumed his time even he did not keep the rule of debate. Dear members, you should vote for me because he violated the basic rule of debate. 1st, he didn't show direct arguments related to debate topic. 2nd, he didn't directly refute opponent's arguments.