BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Wherever Possible

If gay marriage was legalised, homosexuality would spread like wildfire. Many heterosexual people are oppressed and are in reality homosexual in many countries such as ones in the Middle East and North Africa, where it is disencouraged or even banned by law. Sexuality can be compared to with religion. As soon as gay marriage is legalised, people will start coming out of their shells and being more open, possibly creating a norm. I will take your argument of there still being bisexual and heterosexual people existing, but after a period of time of legalisation I imagine they will be sparse. The idea for a time for 'breeding' is a good idea, however homosexual people may not actially want to have intercourse that would go against their sexuality. This shows how it could possibly become a norm and be harmful to reproduction.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Wherever Possible

Thank you. First off, I'm not saying being gay should be a norm, I'm saying if you're attracted to someone of the same sex and you want to be engaged with them, there shouldn't be a law that says you can't. I don't think under population will become a problem since the whole population is still made up of mostly heterosexual people and we'll (hopefully) still have our reproductive organs, so if times become desperate we could make up a time for 'breeding'. Besides, there is a very minute group of people who are gay or bi, so it shouldn't be a big deal executing laws that stop them from engaging. Having such laws just welcomes more hate. Lastly, homosexuals aren't doing anything harmful, immoral, or wrongful, so I really can't see why we can't banish rules that prevent people from marrying who they want.
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Wherever Possible

Before I'd like to begin, I want to state that I am in no way homophobic and I accept homosexual people for who they are. Gay marriage in my opinion should not be legal in all places, for men and women have a natural tendency to be heterosexual for the process of reproduction. I will hear you out on having enough people on this planet, and I do agree that overpopulation is a problem. However, think about the future fifty years from now. Population decline will happen and if homosexuality has become the norm, soon enough there will not be enough population. Good luck for your next argument!
Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Wherever Possible

Anyone should be able to marry any person they want, regardless of gender. Saying gay marriage should be illegal is the same as saying, "girls can't wear short hair" or "soccer players can't love football." I believe gender shouldn't be such a big deal when it comes to anything, really. Sure, men are supposed to be attracted to women, and women are supposed to be attracted to men, it's how nature works, we're supposed to reproduce. But to be honest though, we already have enough people on this planet, it's not like we're going to become extinct soon. In fact, there's more than enough people on this planet already, and our numbers are increasing by the second. I say people should be allowed to love anyone as long as there's no harm done.
breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Rebuttals"It rather also means to take health drinks or healthy diet."Agreed, but it necessarily don't necessarily have to constitute "breakfast"."To your point of being in a profession of sports or modelling, my point is that not everyone is involved in this and no one skips breakfast in order keep them fit".As stated earlier, "Different people have different stamina and their diet vary accordingly", Skipping breakfast is their personal choice and it helps them keep them fit accordingly. "It rather increases the chances of getting sick."People who skip breakfast are healthy too.[1]Conclusion"Breakfast" is not necessarily the most important meal of the day. Instead "balanced diet" is important and this does not have to constitute "breakfast". There are myths about "Breakfast" that if we skip, it cause "heart" attack, reduces concentration, risk of diabetes etc. However these are totally false and various study shows, there are millions of healthy people who skip "breakfast" regularly and they are perfectly normal and fit. "Lots of people who skip breakfast or practice intermittent fasting are healthy and normal.In fact, "Skipping" breakfast have many health benefits such as weight loss, increase in metabolic rate,"Appetite" control, "Blood sugar" control, burning of "fat" etc.Thus "Breakfast" is not necessarily the most important meal of the day and instead "skipping" breakfast has many health benefits.[2][3]Sources[1]http://www.details.com... [2]http://stronglifts.com...[3]http://www.news.cornell.edu...
breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Okay with my view on all your points, let me make myself clear that breakfast doesn't mean 3-4 chapatis and heavy rice or something, it rather also means to take health drinks or healthy diet. To your point of being in a profession of sports or modelling, my point is that not everyone is involved in this and no one skips breakfast in order keep them fit. It rather increases the chances of getting sick. And talking about health or fat, it will be rather satisfying point that instead of skipping your breakfast, skipping your dinner will help it more as we only have to sleep after that. Breakfast is the most important meal of the day because we have to carry out all the activities in a day and that requires a great level of energy, not only that but level of concentration and interest, and if you are tired how can you even imagine your mind to go with your further works? Skipping breakfast is nowhere a great idea, it is very important and helps keeping you energised all the day.
breakfast is the most important meal of the day

RebuttalsOkay, if you think its not the important meal of the day, then check it once or for some number of times. You will definitely feel tired and you wont be participative in the activities as the maximum number of activities are carried in the day time.Let's debate in general other than pointing in person. Different persons have different stamina and it is totally different from person to person. Different people have different diets and vary accordingly. Thus it can be said, not eating breakfast doesn't affect much in day to day activities,other than that we (in common) can have health drinks at regular intervals of time for energy. For example:- Sportsmen require a different diet from normal persons and so is the nutrient consumption.[1] Skipping Breakfast will increase the chances of heart attack.This may be true for people aged 50+ or 60+ but not in common. Models, Sport persons and many other professionals, most of them do not have regular breakfast at all, Instead they have separate and balanced diet.Benefits of Skipping Breakfast1. Skipping "Breakfast" helps to reduce weights.[2][3]2. Helps in increasing "metabolic" rate.[2]3. Helps in improving "Appetite" control.[2]4. Helps in improving "Blood sugar" control.[2]5. Increases "fat" burning.[2]Sources[1]http://www.ext.colostate.edu...[2]http://www.huffingtonpost.com...[3]http://well.blogs.nytimes.com...
breakfast is the most important meal of the day

Ok if you think its not the important meal of the day, then check it once or for some number of times. You will definitely feel tired and you wont be participative in the activities as the maximum number of activities are carried in the day time. Moreover, you already know that skipping it will increase the chances of heart attack, are you still willing to take this issue in a casual manner ? If compared lunch and dinner are also important but the thing is you can survive without dinner a day or it wont affect you much, but skipping your breakfast will affect you. For studens and children its having a great importance of its own too.
Words do not have objective meaning

"Objective" will refer to concepts containing particular characteristics that are valid independent of biased perspectives. "Words" will be limited to words in the English language "have. .. meaning" will be considered something like "identity;" something with "meaning" has or refers to an ontological "content. " Burdens: This Pro/For in this debate will be burdened with defending that words do not have meaning, or that the proposition that "words have meaning" is strongly problematic. The Con/Against will be burdened with demonstrating that at least one word has objective meaning, or that there is more reason to think that words have objective meaning than reason to think that words do not have objective meaning.
Animal testing should be banned

There seems to be a contention regarding the subject of animal testing vs animal killing another for its survival. I shall accepting that perhaps I was not clear in my defense of animal testing above. I wanted to show mainly two prepositions:P1: Survival is a necessary part of nature; it is amoral if a creature takes a life of anotherP2: Conducting animal testing is necessary for survivalC: Therefore, animal testing should be permittedSURVIVAL IS NECESSARY; IT IS AMORALArnav agrees that eating animals is okay ("we eat them I agree")- it is a necessary part of survival. To survive means to continue to live or exist, especially in spite of danger or hardships. [1]I brought up killing because I wanted to take the extreme position that humans are permitted to do anything, even up to the point of taking another lay animal's life, provided it is for the reason of survival.There is no difference between (a) survival from nutrition and (b) survival from deriving drugs quickly enough to combat virus or bacteria ("VB"). Both are necessary for us to continue to live / exist, and the lack of both will put us in danger (re: definition of survival). In both of these cases, it is amoral if we end up killing the animal or subjecting it in a painful situation. (Though we should strive to minimize it) After all, who is to say that a gazelle does not feel "tortured"?CONDUCTING ANIMAL TESTING IS NECESSARY FOR SURVIVALThe only major limiting factor in whether we can survive today is how effective we are in combating the attacks of constantly evolving VB. VB such as the gram-positive bacteria have evolved resistance to drugs we develop to protect ourselves. [2]The extent of how well we survive is dependent solely on how fast we are able to come up with new drugs to combat the threat of VB attacks. We need animal testing.CONCLUSIONNothing wrong; it shouldn't be banned.Sources[1] http://www.thefreedictionary.com...[2] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
Animal testing should be banned

I believe that animal testing should not be banned.| Taking the lives of other creatures for survival is an amoral act |Consider a case where a cheetah has to consume a gazelle. If we follow Arnav's reasoning, the gazelle has life and hence rights. The cheetah cuts the gazelle"s life short because of its "selfish", "insensitive" and "incorrect" needs. Yet, it is what nature intends it to be - the predator will eat the prey, which will eat other forms of living things in turn.The purpose of this action is survival and the propagation. It is neither a "right" thing to do, nor a "wrong" thing to do, it just is. In nature, animals need to survive and propagate. A cheetah will eat a gazelle, and a gazelle will eat some other form of living thing. >> Killing other creatures for survival is amoral; it is just how nature is. | The concept of Rights |"Rights" is a man-made construct. As a society, we agree on certain fundamental rights which all of us should have, some of which are inviolable. These rights exist and are communally enforced in order to protect our interests and allow for a stable and safe society. It is for reasons of self preservation that we give ourselves rights.Despite our advances, the need to survive and propagate persists even if it may be in a different form from a cheetah vs. a gazelle. We understand the nature of diseases and viruses, and how rapid they evolve. Animal testing should be permitted; it is merely our form of adapting to the environment. The act of killing another creature for survival is an amoral one. "Rights" is a man-made construct created to protect our interests. If animals have rights, it is only because Man gave it to them. Animals" rights are below that of Man. Man still needs to survive and adapt to nature (i.e. diseases and viruses) >> Man can conduct animal testing, which is a form of survival (amoral act)
If God is sovereign in the Calvinist sense, then universalism should be true.

I accept.Thanks to popculturepooka for the challenge.I agree with all of the definitions and explanations, but I would like to add a couple more just for people who may not traffic in this subject.By sovereign in the Calvinist sense is meant that every last thing that happens in the universe and in all of reality, happens because God intended it to happen. That includes all of our choices as well as every event in the subatomic world. As the Westminister Confession puts it, "God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass."Theological determinism is similar to what most people understand as compatibilism. The only difference is that theological determinism is more comprehensive, and God is the "prime mover." That does not mean that God directly causes each event that happens. He uses secondary means to accomplish his purposes.Compatibilism is the view that free will is compatible with determinism. Compatibilists define free will as the ability to act on purpose, out of our own desires or motives, without being forced against our wills to act otherwise. Jonathan Edward's view was that all of our acts (the ones we do on purpose) are determined by our strongest desire or motivation at the moment of choice.Libertarianism is the view that free will is incompatibile with determinism. Libertarians define free will as the ability to act without any antecedent causes or conditions (including their own psychological states) up to the moment of choice determining what one's choice will be. When a person acts freely in the libertarian sense, they could have done otherwise.Although Pro didn't say so, I'm assuming we have a shared burden of proof. He has already explained the point of view he will defend. I'll just be denying his claim. That is, I'm going to defend the notion that divine sovereignty does not entail universal salvation, and that Calvinists are consistent in affirming both divine sovereignty and that some people will not be saved, and that affirming both does not create an unsolvable problem of evil.Good luck, popculturepooka!
If God is sovereign in the Calvinist sense, then universalism should be true.

IntroductionI thank philochristos for agreeing to debate me on this very interesting topic and I suspect it will one of kind (at least on this website)!In this debate I will be arguing that if God is sovereign in the Calvinist sense, then universal salvation/reconciliation* should be true. This debate will be rooted firmly within the context of Christian theology - specifically the Reformed/Calvinist** branch of Christianity - so many propositions shall be taken for granted. Some would be that God is all-knowing, all-good, and all wise; that Jesus died and atoned for humans' sin, and so on and so forth. When I say "sovereign in the Calvinist sense" I mean to refer to the the Calvinistic notions of theological determinism. *** My main contention here will be that if universalism is denied this generates an intractable problem of evil that would cast doubt on God's omnibenevolence which would, in turn, cast doubt on the proposition that God exists. To avoid this conclusion one who thinks that God is sovereign in the Calvinist senseNotes* In Christian theology, universal reconciliation (also called universal salvation, Christian universalism, or in context simply universalism) is the doctrine that all sinful and alienated human souls—because of divine love and mercy—will ultimately be reconciled to God. [1]** Calvinism (also called the Reformed tradition or the Reformed faith) is a major branch of Western Christianity that follows the theological tradition and forms of Christian practice of John Calvin and other Reformation-era theologians. [2]*** Putting it all together, Edwards’s theological determinism amounts to this: all created objects depend both for their existence and for the instantiation of whatever properties they exemplify on the immediate, total, and exclusive causal activity of God, and the lawful regularities in nature are expressions of God’s faithfulness in ordering the world after a fashion that appears, sub specie temporalis, as though every event were causally necessitated by antecedent events. To complete the picture, we need to make explicit a ﬁnal element Edwards leaves suppressed: it is not within the power of any human person to cause God to will what He does, and no human person has the power to frustrate the eﬃcacy of the divine will. [3] Rules1st round for acceptance.Rounds 2 - 4 for the argumentation.Sources[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] http://faculty-staff.ou.edu...
The Bible is not a reliable source of information.

This debate is about the reliability of the Bible, yes, but I would like to make a rebuttal of one of your Evolution points before we go on. You wrote:"You say that until creationism can be proven true, you will believe in evolution, but there is no actual certainty that it is true either."Additionally, you write:"There is no 100% certainty that evolution is true, because nobody actually has seen it happen."TannerJK, I am afraid you don't realize the miraculous evidence of Evolution. Evolution is occuring right in front of you. It is happening very slowly, but it is still happening. There is 100% certainty about the truth of Evolution to all people who are reasonable and scientific. However, it is the one who is susceptible and weak that gives in to the Bible's lies. Besides the Bible, there is no evidence to support Creation. And really, the Bible is not evidence of anything. It is a book based on the hallucinations of peasants, distortions of facts, assumptions and unfounded opinions. That, TannerJK, you cannot deny. I will continue making additional arguments and making rebuttals about your arguments:I would like to point out your ability to assume the Bible's truth. Now, I will admit that the Bible has a few truths, but the general idea of the Bible is a giant lie. If I seem that I am disrespecting your religion, I apologize. I do, however, want to ask you a few questions. Answer those questions for me and then we can continue:1. Just because the Bible says things happened, does that mean they happened?2. Just because brilliant men such as Plato, Aristotle, and Homer have written works supporting the Bible, does that make the Bible true?3. Exluding the Bible, is there any solid scientific evidence to support the things the Bible has stated?4. What are the names of the Bible's authors? Tell me the name of every single author of the total 39 you claimed there are.5. Are the miracles in the Bible scientifically possible?6. Are the sources you listed reliable?7. Do you even have any sources or is all of your argument a made-up piece of crap?I would appreciate answers to all of these questions. Now, I apologize if my conduct is a little unfriendly. It is not my intent. I do, however, want to make strong arguments and I want to ask strong questions in order to get solid, valid evidence of the Bible's reliablity. Until you can prove the Bible's reliability, you must assume the Bible is unreliable. Also, I would like to clarify something before I close my argument. By "reliability", I mean that the events of the Bible actually occured and that the characters did everything the book claims. Now, I will admit that the Bible has some good moral lessons, but it is not a reliable source regarding historic information. I now pause my arguments and I will resume my rebuttals and arguments once my opponent has done his.
Global Warming

There are many ways to improve Earth environment. Whether global warming can makes Earth a greener planet, it is really a unwise decision to support global warming when there are so many negative effects are clearly presented. In addition to your argument in round 3, Al Gore argued, in his article "The Tim to Act is Now", that though there might not be a direct relationship between global warming and the frequency of hurricanes, global warming has made hurricanes stronger in past years.
Global Warming

Don't get me wrong, we do need water, but remember most of the fresh water that has been obtained, it may fail due to the melting glaciers. As it pertains to the subject of our environment and the need for a greener planet, you have to support global warming, according to the Skeptical Science website, it presents a greener rain forests in the Amazon, while the amount of vegetation is enhanced in the Atlantic, global warming is producing a better environment through a greener planet.
Global Warming

It is true that we seemed to had a couple really cold winters. However, there are a lot more negative effects of global warming that we do not really see them in our life. For instance, the melting process of mountain ice is natural, but due to climate change, the rising temperature causes the ice to melt much faster. As consequence, according to the research, it broken the balance of water cycle, which cause water shortages in area where people are feed by mountain ice water.
Global Warming

First of all, look at what has happened over the past couple of years as in terms to climate change. Yes, there have been record high temperature days and the number of low temperature days have decreased, but in a way, people have always complained about the cold weather, but now because of global warming, the days are warmer and now that ice glaciers are melting, there are smaller chances of major blizzards happening anytime sooner. Global warming is good for the planet in terms of climate.
Global Warming

Within last couple decades, global warming has raised a big attention among scientists and public. Researchers have shown that the rising of the temperature on the earth will going to negatively affect lives on Earth and human activities. In addition, global warming are very likely to cause an increase in speed on the melting process of glaciers because then the melting rate is much faster than the speed that fresh snow replace. It will eventually resulted a rising of the sea-level, which will constitute a dangerous situation to many people who live near coast. Moreover, scientists have also found that global warming has impacts on natural disaster, and animal habitat. Therefore, the issue of global warming is a very serious and we should do more to protect our environment.