BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Homosexuality is wrong

I would like to clarify a few things before proceeding. I do not resent homosexuals. Also, I do not believe in a creator, so I will not be basing this on pre-defined morality. I am simply attacking the poor structure of the argument itself. There is an issue with the opponent's debate TITLE. "Homosexuality is "wrong". " Wrong is defined as[1]: 1. not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed 2. not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: 3. out of order; awry; amiss 4. not suitable or appropriate Each **applicable** definition is actually in the favor of the Pro. How? Definition 1:(not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed) We may ask what morality truly is. We all agree on a general sense of right and wrong. There is no objective, complete and coded morality, but a very dynamic basis on which key components most agree. Homosexuality is not applicable within the standard, general moral code. There is a natural repulsion of homosexuality in standard morality. Homosexuality tended to be frowned upon by the majority until homosexuality became more prevalent (or outspoken). However, the laws of morality can change. But, to what standard to they change or become wrong? Well, a standard we apply is the one that we see in nature and biology. (More on this later) Definition 2(not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice:): Homosexuality IS unusual and is only becoming semi-prevalent until now. The majority of living things are NOT homosexual. Only a minority are, and the behaviors being performed are that of little complexity or attempt at reproduction. A fly has no cognitive awareness whatsoever and does not have the ability to recognize what it's doing to any degree of complexity. Also, this is not strict adherence to orientation, the flies may deviate to engaging in behaviors with the opposite sex. Definition 3: out of order; awry; amiss Order. Awry. Amiss. Homosexuality is not intended in nature. A male is supposed to reproduce with the female. No males are supposed to together, neither females. It's like trying to say that two plugs or two sockets are meant for each other. This analogy is loose, but it is a representation of the correct, orderly method. Definition 4: Not suitable or appropriate Homosexuality is not appropriate. [3]Appropriate: Suitable or proper in the circumstances Need I touch on what's proper/SUITABLE** again? [1] . http://dictionary.reference.com... [2]. http://www.urban.org... [3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Fat Tax should be implemented

Con argues that there are no objectively unhealthly foods. This is untrue, a medical dictionary (online) has defined unhealthy foods as any food that is not regarded as being conducive to maintaining health. They include fats (especially of animal origin), "fast" foods (which are low in fibre and vitamins), foods high in salt and tropical oils (e. g. , fried potato chips), and cream-based ("white") sauces (which are high in fat) and junk food as a high calorie food low in nutritional value. And furthermore as a collective society it is pretty clear that we all know what we classify as unhealthy foods. It is also further proven as no type of junk food was stated yet con already knew exactly what it is was when including an example of McDonald's which, by the way, is subject to biased as the CEO of McDonald's underwent this "experiment. " Con's point about discriminatory and regressive nature will be dealt with in my later argument along with the inefficacy of the tax. Finally, con ended by saying the government has no right to interfere with an individuals right or "choice" as I see it to their own health decisions. Choice, however, is only effective when individual's make choices that do not harm themselves. Obesity is a harm to oneself as I stated in round one. Also, where the government provides health care to a state and takes on the expenses, the state has every right. Tax is an effective way to fight obesity. There are already numerous programs running world wide that are in place to combat obesity. On their on they are ineffective, but when this tax is added it solidifies what these campaigns are doing. In short, we need to practice what these campaigns preach. Here, I address con's third point. It is important to address the obesity epidemic, even when families feel they have to spend more on food than they would like. Nothing short of force will cause people to change to healthier habits. It is important to note that low income households are the highest risk of obesity. These families are also effected by obesity related diseases. Thus spending more money on food now will save them thousands that will be spent on medical bills. Reducing obesity will make more productive people who can do more at work - potentially earning more and thus cancels out the tax. This tax is a paying it forward initiative - spending a little time and effort now and reap the benefits for the individual and the society in the future. The government is within it's boundaries with this tax, rather than outright banning certain products -which would be the fastest solution it is providing a disincentive for certain harmful choices. This is an entirely legitimate action, as it does not remove choice from the table but awards the conscious choice and protects the general society from harm and medical spending is prevented. It is also important to note that in the EU a report found that fat taxes were effective and even caused competition in the "healthier" foods sections causing more affordable prices for consumers.
Fat Tax should be implemented

The debate is whether fat tax should be implemented. Fat tax is defined as a form of sin tax implemented on unhealthy foods that are linked to obesity. The motion is limited to first world or developed countries as these are the countries facing high level obesity and would benefit from such taxes. Fat tax is proposing tax on food and drinks which are considered unhealthy. These foods are believed to increase the obesity levels. "Fat tax" is another form of sin tax - taxing on items such as cigarettes. A sin tax refers to popular vices and comes from prostitution in the 16th Century. It is proven to be success. In the US for every 10% price increase there is 4% reduced consumption. To combat the epidemic that is obesity it makes sense to implement this tax which has proven to decrease societal vices. When unhealthy food costs more it is proven that consumption will decrease. The excuse for "junk food" consumption is that it is cheap. However, a tax would make it more or less the same level as healthy food in which people would choose the healthier food as the issue is not healthy living education but affordability. Sin taxes are proven to decrease the consumption of taxed goods falling in to the category, thus the solution to the obesity epidemic is "fat tax." An an unimaginable amount is spend on medical expenses because of obesity and related weight issues. In countries where medical services are given by the state, this cost then falls to the state to cover. It is also important to remember disease and other medical conditions linked to obesity. Diseases such as Type 2 Diabetes, several kinds of cancer, coronary artery disease, stroke, congestive heart failure, asthma, chronic back pain and hypertension are only a view diseases. The diseases in this list are chronic and therefore need lifelong therapy which usually include expensive and complex procedures. Even if these are not all taken on by the state this puts pressure on the household to produce enough income not only to treat the medical issues but also to keep the rest of the household running. Not to mention the loss of income caused by obesity in ways such as decreased productivity, absence and premature death. This makes it clear the the "choice" to obesity and unhealthy living should be restricted - (note: not taken away). Therefore the government would have a legitimate reason to implement such a tax. Finally, fat tax would allow for healthier decisions as the prices across healthy and unhealthy foods would no longer have such an immense gap. The simple fact that sugary, salty and unhealthy foods are more popular is the prices. These foods are not only less expensive but also less likely to be affected by inflation. It is also important to note that obesity is prevalent in lower socio economic households. Thus proving that food choices are dependent on price. For theses reasons I propose the implementation of "fat tax"
Fat Tax should be implemented

For the final round I will give one more point, give my final rebuttal and end with the general debate summary. Consistency - Most "Luxury" items are already taxed higher than "essentials" based on their association with unhealthy lifestyles such as alcohol and cigarettes. Fast food is not an essential. Eating too much of it is bad for the health. As we already have a precedent for substances which fit this description, there is no reason not to follow that precedent. Over all rebuttal: Con has spent most of the debate refuting points made rather than actually proving the inefficacy of the motion. This further proves that there is insufficient evidence that this motion would prove detrimental if put into place. Con agrees that there is an epidemic of obesity but has failed to give any other solutions to the epidemic that are not the proposed "fat tax. " Meaning, this is the solution. To make it clearer for a con, unhealthy foods are high in calories but low in nutritional value, this results in over eating as the body does not get the necessary nutrients. These foods should be taxed - this links to another point made about affordability. Having to buy and more food cancels out the "cheap" of the junk food. (I just want it noted that I am from South Africa - things may differ in terms of government/medical systems) Con feels that a disincentive to prevent unhealthy eating by the government is a form of an Authoritarian approach, when rather it is a way to improve the health and living conditions of the people. There is no exact definition for unhealthy food, this is agreed. But we are all aware of foods that have the "junk/unhealthy" connotation. Exacerbates crony capitalist corruption - unfortunately I previously ran out of space. If anything, this motion would result in even more smaller business growing. Junk food is made by big corporations. This also small food companies who sell healthier foods a greater chance in the economy as they are not part of the mass production system and thus have higher prices. This motion puts them on equal grounds with the once cheaper foods created by big business. Discriminatory and regressive - short term, you spend less on food in the moment. But the low nutritional value makes you hungrier sooner resulting in more spending. This causes high intake of junk food leading to health problems. Health problems need to be paid for, with money - that you could have saved by eating healthier. Fails to create a healthier society - "Unhealthy foods are healthier for the poor" - this argument has no stance as it cancels itself out. Unhealthy food is unhealthy for everyone regardless of socio-economic status. Here is a link to a report on the efficacy of fat tax. (. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com...) Because Con made very little points to support his argument I feel that this motion falls in my favour.
Abortions should be illegal

I understand if you're busy, but honestly, never start a debate if you can't follow through. Anyway. The Unborn Victims of Violence Act states that "the term "unborn child" means a child in utero, and the term "child in utero" or "child, who is in utero" means a member of the species homo sapiens". Notice the wording. A member of the species homo sapiens. Let me ask you, is one cell a person? Two cells? When does a person become a person? To say that a person is a person as soon as they are conceived is nonsensical, because you are arguing that a single cell is a person. By this argument, birth control should also be illegal. Therefore, there is no logical moral argument against abortion (Of course, late abortion is a completely different story, but that's already illegal unless the mother is in danger.) That doesn't mean that there is no argument whatsoever, though. You raise an interesting point with your sequoia analogy. However, the fetus could grow up to be a serial killer too. Most likely, it will just be another average, everyday person. Also, what would our population be without abortion? Estimates range from just a little over 7 billion to 9 billion. Let's assume 8 billion. 8,000,000,000 people. There are already millions starving with 7 ,000,000,000. Do we need another billion? And, assuming that this trend continues, by 2100, there would be at least 14 billion people. With abortion, a number like 10 billion is more likely. 10 billion is horrible, but 14 billion could spell extinction. This is not an exaggeration.
Abortions should be illegal

Sorry for not replying sooner. I was out on vacation with some friends plus I had work. Alright, I'll explain to you why abortion is wrong. The killing of an innocent human being is wrong, even if that human being has yet to be born. Unborn babies are considered human beings by the US government. The federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which was enacted "to protect unborn children from assault and murder," states that under federal law, anybody intentionally killing or attempting to kill an unborn child should "be punished... for intentionally killing or attempting to kill a human being." The act also states that an unborn child is a "member of the species homo sapiens." So it's technically murder. Also killing that developing child is like stepping on the sequoia (the biggest tree in the world) when it was an acorn. It could've had the chance to become something great, but the chance of the baby was ruined because the mother wanted to be selfish. (Why not adoption?)
The same sex should be allowed to have a marriage.

"If geyness takes over than what will be the point of wife." Did you mean "life?" Moving past the multiple errors in that sentence, it follows your earlier claim that being gay is bad. You're yet to prove that. I say it's not bad. Anyway, this would only happen if being gay was a choice, which it isn't. Even if it was, your argument doesn't make sense. Why are the men converted first? Regardless, even if this somehow happened, I don't think it would be a tragedy. Why do you? I appreciate your examples of how ridiculous and terrible it sounds to make fun of people for their sexual orientation. Please realize this is pretty much what you're doing by denying homosexual people the right to marriage.
The same sex should be allowed to have a marriage.

If geyness takes over than what will be the point of wife. The men will start liking other men. Then the women are left to women. So that would leave the rest of the staight married couple a man and a woman to be laughed at. It will be straght but the people would say something like,"Miss why are you going with that smelly,messy,and germed man when there are women?" Same with men," Why are you going with that brat that wants everything to be perfect and clean? There are men." That is what will happen!
The same sex should be allowed to have a marriage.

You claim that we should ban gay marriage because we shouldn't condone homosexuality; however, you present no proof that being homosexual is actually bad. I'm not going to just accept that statement unless you support it. You also claim every person in a homosexual marriage regrets it, but that just isn't true. You don't cite any source for the fact. Even if it was true, (which it isn't), wouldn't that be good for you? You want to help people not be gay, so wouldn't letting them do something they regret help with that? By not allowing homosexual people get married, you discriminate against them. We must work towards equality.
The same sex should be allowed to have a marriage.

It should not even though we have are own decisions to make for ourselves we should not be able to have a cricked marriage. The people should not be gey or les but make it to where it is embarrassing for them. They should not be proud of it but be ashamed of it. And we should not just help them be messed up we should be helping, and letting them marry make it even worse and every single one of them regret it.
Atheism ideology does not provide good morals.

He claims that both atheists and christians can do bad, but you go on to say that with a christian, god will just show them the right way, while an atheist must find the right way on their own. You suggest that weakness and dependancy is better than self-fortitude and independant problem solving. There is no such thing as "good morals" or "bad morals" It truly is just one big opinion. Here is a list of sins that will supposedly have you sent to Hell; -Mixing fabrics -If an ox gores someone, the ox shall be stoned to death. -You must not boil a kid its mother's milk. -Four-legged fouls are an abomination. -Those with flat noses or damaged testicles must stay away from the altar. -Mixing seed when sowing fields -Breeding cows with diverse species -Ye shall keep my statutes. -Masturbation -Homosexuality -Women not dressing modestly -Crafty conversation -Abortion -Offending a child of god -Deceiving a child of god -Not spanking a disobedient child -Cursing -Drugs -Touching a woman while she's on her period. -Allowing a woman in church while she's on her period. -Not killing your neighbors for working on the sabbath. -Adultery only by looking -Aaron must wear a bell whenever he enters the holy place or God will kill him. What about all of the lost books of the Bible? -Book of the Covenant -Book of the Wars of the Lord -Book of Jasher -The Manner of the Kingdom / Book of Statutes -Book of Samuel the Seer -Nathan the Prophet -Act of Soloman -Shemaiah the Prophet -Prophecy of Abijah -Story of Prophet Iddo -Vidions of Iddo the Seer -Iddo Genealogies -Book of Jehu -Saying of the Seers -Book of Enoch -Book of Gad the Seer -Epistle of Corinth -Epistle of the Ephesians -Epistle from Laodicea to the Colossians -Nazarene Prohpecy Source -Acts of Uziah -The Annals of King David -Jude, The Missing Epistle There are many more books missing, and many books that have been changed and removed from the Bible over time. [] http://www.answering-christianity.com... http://www.answering-christianity.com...
Atheism ideology does not provide good morals.

Thank you for your side. I will examine each statement. 1. "I have morals, all atheists have morals. I believe you should be able to do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm anything in the process." It does say in the Bible that everyone is born with a sense of goodness inside of them. This is why we don't have to be taught right and wrong a lot of times when we are young. However, the Bible also says that your goodness can be seared if you go against it for so long. We do see this also. Yes, there are both good and bad Atheists and Christians. The difference is this; when a Christian does something wrong, he can be shown why he is wrong through his religion. When an Atheist does something wrong, it is up to him if it was wrong if he decides his own morals. 2. "Many secular views have been incorporated into Religion throughout history.Such as celebrating Christmas on 25th. The entire idea of Christmas was derived from the Roman festival 'Saturnalia'." However, this does not change Christianity itself. Many Atheists can agree that the Ten Commandments is correct. So, does that mean that Atheism has many religious thing in it? Does it make it less Atheist? 3. "If God is so perfect then why would he send you to Hell? Why not give substantial evidence for his existence." Sin has to be punished. If someone kills your kids, and then the judge doesn't punish them, is that right? We as humans sin, so we must accept forgiveness. Also, maybe there is evidence for God, you just aren't accepting it. Many Atheists trust by faith that evolution and the big bang is true, but denies anything about God. What's the difference between trusting some people about science and some people about religion. 4. "What are "perfect morals", Can you define this, What exactly are they? Give me an entire list." If you can't name perfect morals, what do you think every person on the planet can have morals that are good? 5 "For my final statement, look back to number two, as it will reveal my thoughts. Humans can not decide right and wrong since it will eventually get to the point when there will be no right and wrong." I'm Human and I can decide right from wrong. I know not to steal anything, I know to not kill anyone, I know not to harm anyones property. None of this proves the existence of any type of God." There was a case a little while ago. A man raped a woman several times in the night due to the fact that she was drunk. When he got arrested, many people came to his defense saying that it was the woman's fault for being drunk. That man thought that it was morally correct to rape that woman when she was drunk. If morals truly are created by each person, than this man was morally " correct". He followed his own moral, so how can you say he was wrong?
Atheism ideology does not provide good morals.

I have morals, all atheists have morals. I believe you should be able to do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm anything in the process. Many secular views have been incorporated into Religion throughout history.Such as celebrating Christmas on 25th. The entire idea of Christmas was derived from the Roman festival 'Saturnalia'. If God is so perfect then why would he send you to Hell? Why not give substanical evidence for his existence. What are "perfect morals", Can you define this, What exactly are they? Give me an entire list. "For my final statement, look back to number two, as it will reveal my thoughts. Humans can not decide right and wrong since it will eventually get to the point when there will be no right and wrong." I'm Human and I can decide right from wrong. I know not to steal anything, I know to not kill anyone, I know not to harm anyones property. None of this proves the existence of any type of God.