BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

Snaxattck thank you for posting that you were penalized and nothing else. As we know gay marriage is now legal in these 50 states. You know why? Because of what the Supreme courts quote says right on the building "equal justice under law." If gay marriage was illegal that wouldn't be true the LGBT wouldn't have their equal rights to everyone else. Why do we reach into these peoples private lives? Also if gay marriage was illegal, it would break the rules of our own construction! Under the 14th amendment! That everyone is equal! Would that be the case if gay marriage was illegal? The people of the United States are starting to agree with same-sex marriage, according to a recent poll 60% of Americans now agree with Same-sex marriage. So now the religious community is less than the people that favor same-sex marriage. So now even some religious Americans are agreeing with same-sex marriage. Because of "equality under all." Everyone deserves to be equal to another no one deserves more rights than another person. Why should the LGBT community be discriminated against? They have done nothing wrong! And the religious community still has their right to their opinion they can reject a marriage if they choose. They can reject something if it is against their belief's, that's the separation of church and state. Like I said before gay marriage was legalized because it gives everyone equal rights, religion can argue against it all they want. But the construction said that everyone deserves equal rights. Even the smallest of groups, everyone deserves equal rights. And please don't give me your crap that it violates religious beliefs because more religions accept gay marriage than the ones that don't. Link here: https://en.wikipedia.org... and even in the article most religions say that everyone deserves their rights. Would a god want a world where everyone is equal? And where people aren't discriminated upon? The answer to that is yes. There is nothing wrong with what they think they can choose what they want as long as it doesn't hurt me or you. So how does there marriage affect you? The answer to that is it doesn't. Gay marriage is free will you have the right to make that decision. Why should a religion that they don't even follow affect them? Why should another persons opinion affect them? Why should a catholic church affect them? Everyone has the right to their views. But, these people love each other they are not doing any harm! They should live under the same roof together and live a happy amazing life. Not be prevented from doing so. Thank you I am looking for snax attack to post his debate. I hope his debate is equal to mine in length as well. Sorry this is so late! Good luck to you! :)
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

Also, I would like to clarify something about this debate I said it should be legal in all 50 states. This has nothing to do with states legalizing same-sex marriage. It is weather or not it should be legalized across the country. Now to my debate. Gay marriage should be legal because you should have the right to marry who you want to marry. The government does not have a right to reach their hand into your relationships. Gay couples love each other and they deserve the right to get married. A region that you don't even follow should not affect your choices as a human being. Also as we know the supreme court is deciding on gay marriage right now. And they have legalized it as we are speaking. Lets take a look at something else Abortion. A woman should have the right to make her own choice. A religion shouldn't affect that. This is my short opening argument. Good luck to you.
Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states.

Hello welcome to the debate! I will be pro for same-sex marriage and you will be con against same-sex marriage. 1st round will be acceptance only, This debate is closed is say something in the comments if you want to join. (I will only pick someone at or below my level) P.S If you find a way to join this debate with out my consent you will be forced to forfeit. And also, your opening argument should be SHORT.
Media today is sensationalizing news.

The topic is sensationalism of the media. Not only do you fail to miss the point of what sensationalism is entirely, the postulate of your argument is wrong at its core, and there is absolutely no proof or examples you cited that correlate to your argument. First of all, I'll provide the definition of sensationalism from a variety of sources: Merriam-Webster: empiricism that limits experience as a source of knowledge to sensation or sense perceptions Dictionary.com: subject matter, language, or style producing or designed to produce startling or thrilling impressions or to excite and please vulgar taste. Cambridge: when newspapers, TV, etc. intentionally present information in a way that is intended to excite or shock people Any one of these definitions work. Coverage is not the same as sensationalism; in fact they are unrelated concepts entirely, so your second two sentences are absolutely worthless, they provide nothing to the context of this debate, and whether or not they're true have no bearing whatsoever on what we're here to discuss: sensationalism. Anyone watching, be aware that the affirmative case is irrelevant to the stated topic, and that coverage has nothing to do with the topic, and is not the topic of discussion. Onto the topic of sensationalism: The news does not "sensationalize". They simply report what they're paid to report, and report it well. While it may be true negative news is presented more frequently than positive news, this is hardly because "shocking" or "thrilling" people is the point - how can murder actually "thrill" anyone whatsoever? Sensationalism is not what's going on, the are reporting news that is interesting, relevant, and indeed vital for everyone in the reporting area to know. They report what people need to know, what's going on in the community, what's happening with the government they elected, and although they're might be a slight skew for more negative than positive news, the great majority of news is neutral: only good or bad relative to your stance on various issues (e.g. who got elected, when an event of interest is going to happen). In closing, the news is not sensationalist: they are at the core neutral, and there to report the relevent and important news of their community. Thank you.
The ranking system should be abolished

1. Firstly, my opponent has added his defence of religion as being Mikal's defence of religion. Mikal didn't offer any argument or debate on the matter of religion in the post example. Thus, you can't just step in and add your defence on Mikal's behalf by explaining that religion is nonsense. It is up to Mikal to lodge his own defence which he did not do. Mikal may have stated that religion is nonsense in a previous post, but that is irrelevant to this case example. Thus, you can't use other previous posts as a defence on Mikal's behalf. 2. On inspecting your debating history; I can see that the vast majority of your debates are about on-line gaming. Thus, you are not a serious debater of serious matters, but just a debater of silly topics of little moral or social importance. Thus, can we take your concern about this issue seriously? What are your motives for defending this matter? Are you here to protect your ranking? 3. It appears that your main area of interest and concern is the fantasy world of gaming. In this world, you would accumulate points and ranking as you progress through the various levels. Thus, we could say that you are programmed to accumulate a form of 'cyber gold' called ranking points. Thus, your motives for defending this matter would be very suspicious and of doubtful integrity. 4. Most of my topics, on the other hand, are of a controversial nature which attracts heated discussion and personal involvement. This generates many prejudices and biasses which results in emotional responses to logical ideas. Thus, your ranking progression is irrelevant to this topic, because you have not used serious subject matter in your discussion topics. Therefore, it has to be questioned that your motives for defending this matter are likely to be of a personal nature and that you are only defending this case because of the prospect of losing your own ranking. Thus, your motives are of a selfish nature and are inappropriate considering your debating history.
The ranking system should be abolished

This debate by Mikal is a good example of how top ranking debaters get massive points. http://www.debate.org... Mikal replies with a irrelevant and nonsensical response which causes the opponent to give up in disgust. Then, Mikal claims victory by default without giving or offering any argument or defence. His opponent has at least stated his position on the topic. Thus, the instigator should have won. Mikal is awarded 22 points for doing absolutely nothing, other then cutting and pasting the recipe for a cup cake. This is serious abuse of the system and should have been reported by the voters. The failure of the voters to point out Mikal's omissions is a clear indicator that the voting is rigged and that they are all Mikal's friends who have posted their biased opinions. Also, the points system is faulty. 22 points for doing nothing? This should be considered an abuse of the system.
The ranking system should be abolished

I accept. I will be arguing that the people in the top 100 got there by using legit methods. I'll give a brief summary of how this debate will work out. Pro must prove that the people in the top 100 rankings are either hacking, creating multiple accounts and voting for themselves, or some other method to cheat into the top 100. Con must show the top 100 aren't cheating into the top 100, and show why cheating is highly unlikely, if not flat out impossible. This debate is highly controversial to this entire website, and will be taken seriously by Pro, Con, voters, and maybe even the staff. Let's hear Pro's argument.
Prince Is Better Then Dark Prince (Clash Royale)

What? Why would anyone use Dark Prince Asa defensive troop? It is mainly considered as a troop for offense, that is why it has a charge! And can't you just counter a Dark Prince with any air troops (Minion Horde)? And just because Dark Prince is in a higher arena doesn't mean that the troop is better, that's like saying Royale Giant is better then Balloon or Prince. And sorry if that the Dark Prince has the same charging speed (just an idea).
Prince Is Better Then Dark Prince (Clash Royale)

I think that Dark Prince is better than Prince. Yes, Prince has more health and more damage but that is offense. Defense is a big part and the Dark Prince has splash damage which means he will have an easier time defending the tower against any troop that spawns more than 1 like barbarians or spear goblins. The reason why the dark prince has a shield is because after the shield is broken, it does damage to troop currently around or attacking the Dark Prince. If the Dark Prince is encountered with a giant horde of troop, he will lose his shield and deal some damage as well as slightly knock back the troops. Supercell said that in the latest update that the Prince and the Dark Prince are the same speed while charging. You say that the Dark Prince requires to get to Royal Arena. That just means that he is a better troop and only people that have been playing lone enough and well enough can obtain him. He is much more rare than a prince which gives people an impulse that he is better.
Prince Is Better Then Dark Prince (Clash Royale)

I think that's Prince is better then Dark Prince. First off, the Prince has more health then the Dark Prince even with the Dark Princes shield. I don't really see how much of a difference the Dark Princes shield makes because when they are added together (lvl 8 vs lvl 8) there isn't as many hit points as the Prince has. And even though the Dark Prince does have splash damage it doesn't even make that much of a difference. The Prince does more damage then the Dark Prince (could be because of splash damage). And to me it just seems as if the Dark Princes charge is slower then the Princes (opinion). And Prince you can get early so you have more time to level it up but the Dark Prince you have to get alway the way to Arena 7 (2000+ trophies) and it's pretty rare to have in him in the shop or get him from a chest.
Prince Is Better Then Dark Prince (Clash Royale)

I know that there are other ways and the prince is just an example of when you might need a lower elixir troop as distraction. For example you could also be attacked by spear goblins, goblins, musketeer etc. You also said that there is no point for splash damage if you know your going to be attacked by air troop but that is the same as, why would you have more damage and hitpoints if you know you are going to be attacked by air Troops? Though if you used Dark Prince as defense, you would be able to see the minion horde before it could kill you which would allow you to arrow the horde.
Prince Is Better Then Dark Prince (Clash Royale)

First of all, saying the Dark Prince was more of an offensive card was just an example so it isn't really worth attacking. And you don't have to use Prince to take out an arena to were with low health, there are other cards such as rocket or hog rider. And you said that both princes can be take out by air troops, EXACTLY!! It isn't really worth having less health and damage so you can do splash damage if you know you're going to get taken out by air troops.
Prince Is Better Then Dark Prince (Clash Royale)

Dark prince is more fit to be used as defense. It costs less elixir and it doesn't do enough damage to do a lot of damage to a tower. Princes cost 5 elixir while dark princes cost 4 elixir and the drop in elixir cost can have a significant effect in the game. Sometimes, you may be encountered with a tower with a low amount of health with little time left in the game. Sometimes waiting for 5 elixir can affect your game like in the end if there is only 3 seconds left and a prince is charging to win the tower, you can put down a dark prince in front to act as distraction if you don't have enough time to put down a prince. You note that the dark prince is mainly known as an offensive troop just because it has a charge, but it might be used to do harm small troop that may have more health than the regular attack damage. For example some people use the dark prince and prince rush and what is the dark prince used for? Defense for the prince. The prince is the main form of damage while the dark prince protects the prince from small troop that would usually counter the prince. You say that dark prince can easily be countered by air troops but isn't that what prince is countered with too? They are both easily taken out by air troops that the prince can't attack.
All prisoners have the right to visits from the outside under the 8th amendment

Being able to exercise certain basic freedoms is one of the most fundamental aspects of having American citizenship. However, even non-citizens have certain rights and privileges within our borders. I do agree with you and find it unfair that terrorist/non-U.S citizens can have the same rights in prison as U.S citizens. But, according to http://www.lawcollective.org... Non-U.S. citizens who have been charged with a crime have the same rights as U.S. citizens in criminal court, including: the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney paid for by the court if the accused person is low-income, and the right to a trial (including a speedy trial).
All prisoners have the right to visits from the outside under the 8th amendment

Yes, I agree with you that terrorist could potentially plan out other terrorist attacks by having communication with the outside world although that is not the case because everything is so controlled and regulated that there would be no freedom/opportunity for terrorist to interact and talk about planning a terrorist attack. Everything they say is being monitored and controlled. If a family member or friend came to visit a terrorist in prison then they wouldn't want to walk into a place where their personal conversation could be hear and where they could easily be caught. Today, criminals who are terrorist in prison do have the opportunity to have outside communication some way or another and this doesn't lead to more terrorist attacks.
All prisoners have the right to visits from the outside under the 8th amendment

People that participate in terror activities should not be allowed to have communication with people from outside of prison, as well as minimum communication with people inside of the prison. Yes, you are correct that the 8th amendment would grant this as excessive, but, if information were to be let out from the terrorist inside of prison, it could result in even more terror activities that could be detrimental to the health and safety of the peoples of the United States. Such as if the terrorist that is inside of prison is one of the people in charge of the terror activities and their "Brother" comes to talk with him and gets the next major target for their destruction.
All prisoners have the right to visits from the outside under the 8th amendment

Although prisons is a place to keep criminals locked up and away from the outside world, inmates are still allowed to have limited and controlled communication with the outside world. The seriousness of the crime depends on how much outside communication the inmates get but I feel as those all prisoners have the right to visits from the outside world under the 8th amendment which is excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
In practice, socialism requires a ruling elite.

Definitions. For this debate, "in practice" means "as generally applied to humans having ordinary human nature." We might suppose "In theory, police are not required to enforce laws." That's because theoretically every person might study the laws to find out what they are and then voluntarily choose to obey them. In practice, police are required. Moreover, one might cite an isolated monastery where all the monks are inspired to obey laws without police enforcing them. That's not "generally applied." We are talking about applying socialism in countries where the population is not pre-selected for conformance. Socialism is "a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies." [1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...] Yahoo Finance provides a list of the major industries of the United States. [2. http://biz.yahoo.com...] This list is taken as typical, although in some countries some of the listed major industries might be missing. A country without oil will not have oil recovery as an industry. This shouldn't be important for the debate.Background. As background to the debate, two references are of special interest:[3. Joshua Muravchik, Heaven On Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism, Encounter Books, 2003][4. Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010 (originally 1922)]A comparison of socialism and capitalism is given on the web at [5. http://www.diffen.com...] The debate is about socialism wherein the major industries are controlled by government.I invite Con to include any background references he chooses as part of acceptance.Rules and conventions. I have the burden of proof in this debate.I include references in line with numbers sequenced through the debate. My ref [1] will therefore be that cited above throughout the debate. Con may choose any numbering system for his references. In electronic books, page numbers are not always assigned, so quotations must in that case be found by using the search feature of the ebook reader.Standard debate conventions and DDO site rules apply. The first round is for acceptance, definitions, and general background only. The affirmative case will be given in R2. Pro's R4 may include rebuttal to Con's R3, plus a summary. Neither side may make new arguments in R4. Con may not add references in R4, because they cannot be rebutted. All arguments and references must be within the debate.This debate is the second round of ClassicRobert's Gauntlet Tournament. [6."http://www.debate.org...] I welcome my worthy opponent to the arena. The quest for the gonfalon continues!
the story on who is better human or original god of ahmed by ahmed

the audible story on youtube is updated dont forget to listen to it as it has 2 proofs and you can play devil adovocate if you want. this debate is staying with original truth and understanding truth in peace. proof of example 2 from ahmed : spirits comes quickly and tries to change time of humans by forcing humans to think good or think bad and whatever human thinks or understands his time is changed according to his thinking and understanding and spirits says human time is changed by god so everytime spirits wants to change time they force human to think good or bad according to them and they say and believe god changes time of human according to thinking and understanding of human where as if human is god then he enquires why time changes of human so quickly and protect human from spirits so dont you think and believe human is better then god because time of any human is changed because of spirit and god does not protect human and if human sins then god says human sinned and punishment must be given to human and same examples with other subjects of this example. so human is better.
Donald Trump Should not be Impeached: Change my Mind

1. So how do you know Trump is using federal tax dollars for his own businesses? 2. Please explain other instances of "more than sexual assault allegations". And don't just list them, Explain how it was "poor conduct. " 3. Please provide examples. I provided mine. 4. Can you explain more about "requisite Qualification"? This is very minimal for presidency and should not be considered a "high crime or misdemeanor". Many other president's have done this as well, And is just the left trying to pick on him. 5. Lol, It is not "excessive golf play. " Again, This is just the left picking on him. Obama did the same thing. There is no specific rule on how much time you have to work or be in the White House. The thing about determining "impeachment" based on a president's good or bad performance in the White house is not a great measure for determining it. This is because whether he is "good or bad" is all based on perception and opinion.