BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gay marriage is wrong

Let's begin with the counter-rebuttals. "-is the fact that two people love each other enough to want to spend the rest of their lives together there kept it simple definition of marriage." -Not correct. Marriage has always been known as the union between a man and a woman. This definition does not evolve, even if society does. "what is wrong with two people who are incapable of having children wanting {to adopt}." -So, in an adoption situation, there are parents of one gender. Well, it has been proven that children that don't have the presence of a father are more likely to give in to sexual peer pressures- especially girls. In the case of a double-father partnership, kids who lack a mother presence are more likely to get into drugs and alcohol, and this is even higher for boys without a mother. Simply stated, lack of a parent of one gender has negative consequences on the development of the child. http://prospect.org... "and another thing we are talking about human beings not animals therefore that topic of animals should not even be presented ." -Humans are indeed animals. No matter how smart we are, we have the fundamental similarities with animals- A need for survival, the wanting to reproduce, etc. {P4} Science -Opposites attract- a fundamental law of nature and science. Whether it be magnets or electrons-protons, it is shown that two different things were "made for each other" Man and woman, physically different, were made for each-other, as supported by: {P5} Religion, the doctrine that billions follow. Even if you don't follow a religion, humans were made for men and woman to be together, reproduce, support their child, and contribute to society. Gay marriage hinders the growth of a rapidly-advancing population by taking away the chance for abled-people to contribute to the world. Rather than vote biased, please vote on who did a better job debating with better points. Thank you for this debate. -Shadow Dragon-
gay marriage is wrong

merp I don't see how any of that stuff ill list it as makes gay marriage wrong I mean in my eyes that has nothing to do with the fact,which is that gay people should be allowed to be married your going with the traditional sense of things but everyone has their own envisioned of the definition of marriage,which to mean is the fact that two people love each other enough to want to spend the rest of their lives together there kept it simple definition of marriage. Secondly,so what if they cant reproduce that what adoptions for,and before anyone goes and says well gay people shouldn't be allowed to adopt,what is wrong with two people who are incapable of having children wanting to give a kid who without them wouldn't have parents wrong?????????? yes the definition of wrong is morally unacceptable,but I don't think it is you do :) anyways I just don't see how any of that nonsense has anything to do with why gay marriage is wrong. and another thing we are talking about human beings not animals therefore that topic of animals should not even be presented .
gay marriage is wrong

Let us begin by first defining some terms Gay Marriage( Same-sex Marriage): Defined as "The legally recognized union between two partners of the same sex" Wrong: The word 'wrong', as defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary, means: "a behavior that is not morally good or correct" So, the resolution, in other words, is to prove that the union between two partners of the same sex is morally incorrect. I will dissect my argument into separate points. {P1} The definition of marriage Marriage for generations has been defined as the union between a man and a woman. This is what marriage has been known as even in the B.C.'s. It is taking the known tradition of marriage being a convanent between a man and a woman, and twisting the definition, in an attempt to encompass a larger group of people. {P2} Natural Intercourse is the sexual connection between two partners. Biologically, humans, and all other animals, have been made to survive and reproduce. The task of surviving is not difficult, but reproduction would be impossible for homosexuals, as long as they are biologically isolated- they do not get a surrogate or artificial insemination. The opposite genders have complementary sexual organs, for the purpose of reproduction. If the purpose of any group of animals is to have the population survive, certainly a group of individuals who can't would be a setback to the community, and their inability to reproduce makes them unnatural. {P3} Inability to reproduce Two gay partners, if they wanted children, would have to adopt (disregard the artificial forms). "Their" child is now deprived of a parent, a mother or father. The article linked at the bottom shows that fatherless children are more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol. The lack of a parent of one gender has detrimental effects on the well-being of "their" child. Thank you. I will continue my arguments and rebuttals next round. http://www.photius.com...
gay marriage is wrong

you believe that gay marriage is wrong and that's okay because that's your right to have but I would like to challenge that theory of yours first one of your reasons that justify that gay marriage is wrong is that it is an insult to god blah blah blah well I don't agree with the decision of bringing in religion,which of course is basically always the root of most problems,Because religion is based on faith,and belief....its not a proved fact that god or Jesus or the ten commandments or any of that stuff is real,religion is based and made up of faith so saying that homosexuals are an insult to god shouldn't even be one of your founding reasons against this..........because without the proof of a god that's your belief of something that they are "insulting". Secondly,homosexual people are no different then any other human being on this planet,the only thing that makes them different is their sexual preference,they have the same goals dreams and accomplishments. They are the same as you and me, so if with that being said why should they be kept from fulfilling their right to be married. I am positive that you wouldn't want to be kept from your rights,its stupid,its like someone saying that you shouldn't be allowed to vote because you like purple and they don't. being gay isn't wrong at all its wrong because you or whoever else is against it believes that it is wrong there ya go it all come back to belief......you don't like it so that means its wrong.......but what gives you the power to say that,your equal to any homosexual,your not better than them. So you have NO RIGHT to judge them and criticize them at all. If there is a god........let him judge them because he is the only person who I could ever see as having the power to judge anyone. If being gay is a sin or an insult.....so be it but what they do is none of your concern or your business
u suk

The FitnessGram" Pacer Test is a multistage aerobic capacity test that progressively gets more difficult as it continues. The 20 meter pacer test will begin in 30 seconds. Line up at the start. The running speed starts slowly, but gets faster each minute after you hear this signal. [beep] A single lap should be completed each time you hear this sound. [ding] Remember to run in a straight line, and run as long as possible. The second time you fail to complete a lap before the sound, your test is over. The test will begin on the word start. On your mark, get ready, start.
Resolved: In the United States, plea bargaining in exchange for testimony is unjust

I'm not entirely sure why my opponent failed to debate any actual issues or counter-arguments I have made during Round One. She seems to think that because I agreed with her value and value criteria that she has "already won" this debate. I'm not entirely sure what she thinks her point is, but in a debate, the two opponents can (and are often supposed to) use the same value/criteria and thus I have done nothing but effectively argue my side of the debate even on her terms. If that doesn't signal an obvious win for the Con, then I don't know what does. Further, I apologize for my faulty link (haha - that was ironic). The proper citation can be found here [1]. On that note, I wish to extend all of my arguments. Hopefully my opponent puts forth at least a little effort in the next round. If not, I will re-state my position in Round Three and encourage a vote for the Con. Thank you. [1] http://www.nationmaster.com...
All people are prejudiced by nature

I do not believe that all people are prejudiced by nature. I think that something may have happened in a childhood or past of someone who is prejudiced against another person or race or class. I also think that a prejudiced person may have misunderstood (purposely or accidently) history and have a serious dislike for that race class or specific persons. Also would you please provide an example of why a person would be prejudiced and to whom.
All people are prejudiced by nature

Prejudice- : an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, etc. : a feeling of like or dislike for someone or something especially when it is not reasonable or logicalNB - I am not entirely comfortable with this definition - in fact I think it is incorrect. However, it is one of the official definitions so that is what we shall work with. I will be making comments on this definition.By Nature - : essentially or innately*****************************************************I will argue for the motion that all people, as a product of their own innate, unavoidable human characteristics, hold prejudices, or, 'irrational' pre-judgments of a certain class of people, even if they are unaware of the existence of some said prejudices, or openly deny the holding of said prejudices. This motion was inspired by a great many number of opinions on this site that;(a) The expression of discriminatory/prejudiced views should be litigated(b) Loss of free speech is an acceptable sacrifice in moving towards a world of equality(c) Counter-prejudice is justified(d) Seriousness and severity of prejudices are weighted according to their target group (related to point c).*****************************************************Round 1 - acceptanceYour argument may follow any format you deem necessary.
All people are prejudiced by nature

Hey I never said that I hated men. That lady in my post is hypothetical. I just thought it was a good example to use to illustrate my point to people. So no, you being a man doesn't make an iota of difference to me. Well that concludes this debate then. It's a shame it didn't go on. I was hoping for an opponent who really does think that people can be free of prejudices. But I suppose if you agree with me then there's nothing more to debate then.
All people are prejudiced by nature

I apologize for skipping acceptance. Thank you for acknowledging that. I see that I have provided a weak argument and I thank you for that to. I myself am a man and I can see how your standpoint came to be. I do not think that it is wrong to be prejudiced against someone or something, but I do feel like it also depends on how you act on that prejudice. For example (hypothetical): If I hate a black man because I believe that white men are smarter and a better race, then I am entitled to that opinion, that does not mean that it isn't a bad opinion, it is just what I believe. Now if I walked into a grocery store and shot an African American person then I let that prejudice get the best of me. I assume you haven't murdered any men because of a hatred towards them because I assume you are a civilized person. I think that this is more of a moral thing than a mental or physical thing. Please don't let my being a male affect your arguments. Thank you.
Bible Fiction vs. The Bible

Is it wise to write "fiction" when it comes to the Bible? My answer is ABSOLUTELY NOT. Here is why; people read this nonsense and eventually the nonsense becomes Scripture. You can't imagine how many Christians I run into that talk Bible prophecy making nonsense. They quote what they learned from the traditions and fictions of men. One example, a typical Left Behind addict says this "The Antichrist is a homosexual Atheist who comes out of Europe". While this statement is a lump sum one can never find it in the Bible. I then ask them, "how do you know he is homosexual from the Bible" by the time they research the Bible they use one vrese from Daniel 11 "He will not honor the desire of women", then I ask "How does that make a conclusion that the Antichrist is homosexual?" The verse never said "He doesn't desire women", it says "he doesn't honor the desire of women", in other words, he cares less about what women want; he is anti women just as God prophesied in the Garden, that the devil will hate the woman. Summary: The Bible is a blessing and a curse, one can be cursed for reading into the Bible what it doesn't say and one can be blessed for allowing God to say to us what is WRITTEN. The Bible is holy. It needs to be dealt with reverence and utmost care. In America today I find little respect to the Bible, especially by so many who profess it. If you look at Tim Lahay's sexual books, he uses the Bible to get into the most disgusting porn discussions one can read. Sex sells, especially in the name of God. I have shared a pulpit with Tim Lahay and have stated in front of his face what I felt about some of his lousy work. But American evangelicals are the type that love to make Christian heros and the moment you say anything about them the soldiers flock in defense of their idol. Tim Tebow is a great example of what Evangelical Americans love to see as a symbol of Christian heros. Yet Tebow tucked his tail when a pastor who was anti-Homosexuality invited him in which Tebow was criticized by the media. The moment the media attacked Tebow, he pulled out, tucked tail and ran like a coward. Most Evangelicals in America do not know that the Bible says that "Cowards" will "not inherit the Kingdom". This is a serious issue to be a coward, don't you think?
Holiday Store openings

I guess I will do a longer argument now that my opponent has finally responded. I will do my best to not write to much, because I find it unfair to my opponent. Perhaps he is new, or wants a quick easy arguments. I have seen people going all out, like otakujordan. I find this unfair and unnecessary, it is a waste of time, and unfair to the opponents. [1] Rebuttals: "Well families cant spend much time with their families forcing the families to change plans." Why can't families spend time together? They can go to the stores together, something I always do. Also, if the families change plans, you are implying they would spend time together later. They would still end up together. In addition, people don't have to go to stores during holidays, it is their decision. Arguments: For this arguments, I will be explaining 3 basic points, one of which I have already mentioned, but I would like to embellish. More pay, and cheaper prices, and emergencies. That chocolate you need to buy for someone special, the presents you need to buy for that little rugrat, all of these items are usually sold on holidays like Christmas, and valentines day. And what comes with holidays that everyone loves? Not the lack of work, not the nice people, but the sales. During holidays, things go on sale, which is what everyone loves, because it is cheaper. Cheaper is better. In doing so, people of all incomes can purchase items, without having any financial issues. This is the beauty of holidays, there are sales, so people can get more objects. This is a great thing, because people save money. And though may love it, the employees love it as well. During holidays, things get a little crazy. This is actually a good thing. Since things get crazy, more employees are called in, and they get more hours. This gives more money for all employees. Not only that, but with the sales, employees can add their employee discount, and purchase items for practically free. And lastly emergencies. Emergencies happen all the time, no matter what time of the year, including holidays. Take the ice storm in Toronto on Christmas in 2013. This happened very recently. [1] These people were freezing, and out of power all over the city. They needed food, water, clothing, salt, gas etc.. Now let's say the stores were closed the the holidays, they would all be in huge trouble! Imagine that, out of power freezing in your house, all your food spoiled because you have no electricity to store it, and you can't even get emergency supplies! This would be terrible. So in conclusion, stores being open on the holidays would not only be beneficial to both sides of the commerce, but it can also be life saving. Back to you con. source: 1.http://www.debate.org... 2.http://www.thestar.com...
Free thought is not synonymous with atheism

Indeed, a well-fought debate, and may the best man win. New Age Atheism is far more aggressive, argumentative, and confrontational, but none of these things yields conformity or laziness. If anything, modern atheist's love of debate and anti-theism insured and maintains the reason and free-thought that is atheism. For the reason detailed in this debate, atheism is a manifestation of free-thought! and cannot be otherwise! points I feel my opponent t has failed to properly rebut. With that said, it is up to readers to judge whose arguments held better ground.
Free thought is not synonymous with atheism

As much as I would like to offer further rebuttals, I can't due to this round being reserved for closing statements. To sum up my whole argument here, the New Age Atheism seems just as susceptible to closed-mindedness as the religious are. However, it appears we have both misunderstood each other to an extent here. My intentions were to show that atheism wasn't synonymous with free thought, while my opponent had to show that it was. So that is why I spent much time defending religion; to show that it wasn't synonymous with any particular thing, especially atheism. Like my opponent contends about religion, I do not claim that atheists in general are not free thinkers. But the reason I instigated this was to argue that atheism is not neutral and free thought doesn't inevitably lead to it. That was what Con was to argue against.
Free thought is not synonymous with atheism

I accept your challenge, sir. While I am not attempting to alter the proposition in any way, it should be clarified what exactly I will be attempting to prove. Atheism does not possess the sole claim on free thought, nor do all the faithful lack it, but atheism is directly derived from free thought, and with few exceptions, is practiced by nearly all its members. With that cleared, per the rules my opponent will submit their opening argument, and may this debate be a fruitful and enlightening exchange. Good luck!
Free thought is not synonymous with atheism

Many new age atheists that openly oppose religion will tell you that by thinking for yourself, you will be free from religion's supposed tyranny. But is atheism really synonymous with true free thought? I would say that it most definitely isn't and my opponent must argue otherwise. Here's the structure as follows: Round One: Acceptance Round Two: Opening arguments Round Three: Rebuttals to opening arguments (No new arguments will be made.) Round Four: Further rhetorical exchanges between rebuttals Round five: Closing statements Good luck to whoever accepts.
# votes or less should not decide your fate.

An interesting topic my opponent raised, accompanied with strong words. I will proceed to argue that there should not be a requirement on the number of votes needed on a debate to declare a winner, 1. Most debates do not enjoy that many votes, The argument my opponent offers would be much stronger if his three-votes-or-more rule suggestion could be applied. But the unfortunate reality is that most debates do not receive enough votes to make the idea feasible. To demonstrate this, I went to the post-voting section of DDO debates and tallied the number of votes submitted on each debate on the first two pages, numbering about 20. Of those, exactly 4 had three or more votes; a 25% rate. And two of those were debates were one of the participants was trying to lose intentionally. This raises the question: is the goal of making the voting system a tiny bit fair-er really served effectively if it means 75% of debates end in scoreless ties? I say no, the tiny gain is not worth it, and I challenge my opponent to disagree. 2. There are Systems in Place to Prevent Bad Voting I am slightly ashamed to admit that in my early DDO days, several of my votes were taken down by moderators due to their rather lackadaisical nature. On my debates several votes have been removed as a result of their poor or sinister quality. If one feels they were wronged by a vote, they may report it, and moderators will review and look for possible rule abuses. By instituting my opponent's rule, very little would be gained. Don't fix what isn't broken, and the fact that my adversary has not gotten much love from voters in the past reflects not on them, but on him. I see little else to say. Good luck to my opponent in the next round.
Reece mastin is better than Justin bieber

Thank you, I must say I am rather confused, you have shown me a few pages which are about Reece Mastin and how he can play the guitar. The fact of the matter is not whether or not he can play any instruments it is, is he or is he not better than Justin Bieber. Justin Bieber is a world wide phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia.org... "He became the first artist to have seven songs from a debut record to chart on the Billboard Hot 100", I rest my case... He has performed at Madison Square Garden, that is a feat most amazing... Would you not agree? Something that Reece Mastin has clearly not got round to doing... Sure, JB has haters, but they are all just jealous of his talent and the attention he receives from millions of girls worldwide. Most boys hate Justin, but that is mainly because their girlfriend's kiss posters of him every night... In 2011, Bieber took to the big screen in the concert documentary Never Say Never. His fans crowded movie theaters to catch him in action on stage and get a glimpse of his life behind the scenes. The movie, which eventually earned more than $73 million at the box office, tarred lot of other successful celebrities... And I don't know about you but I don't know many 17 year old people as rich as him...
Reece mastin is better than Justin bieber

Thankyou (check your Grammar) I disagree with what you just stated. Reece Mastin is talented, yes, that we all know. But Justin Bieber is even MORE talented. If you were to do a survey asking which of these two boys, girls preferred, I am most certain 70% or more of your data would show that Justin Bieber is in fact more favorable. Oh and Justin Bieber can also play instruments- a guitar being one of them.
The unwanted lick

If a 4 year-old girl wants to be licked by a grown up man, To deny her of that would be a crime. If she licks a grown up man, It is only polite for the man to lick her back. We must teach our children to be friendly with strangers and insist to be licked by them. Children who aren't licked are worth nothing. When I walk on the streets, If I see a child alone, I am going to lick it. Children should be kissed and tickled and licked by grown ups. Lick a 4 year-old girl's cheek as if she was a lollipop, As if she was a sweet candy. Keeping her as a precious jewel, For to give up I would be a fool. Even if she doesn't want to be licked, Give her politely the unwanted lick.