BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage should be legalized

"Would promoting equality be a form of benefitting society? Also, how is a heterosexual with no intention or capability to pro create "benefitting state interests" as my opponent says? An infertile heterosexual couple has the same "pro creating" abilities as a homosexual couple."Again, the state is looking for a procreative environment. While infertile heterosexual couples have no children, they are still in that procreative environment. The state cannot predict every marriage, but can keep in procreative for the benefit of society. Allowing homosexuals to marry does not create a society that promotes equality. Since the state's job is create a healthy environment to continue the survival of society, it has no reason to legalize homosexual marriages because they have no benefit. Homosexual marriages are different than heterosexual marriages because they cannot create children. That is why legalizing homosexual marriages is not create equality. No law says that heterosexuals are allowed or not allowed to marry, so making a law for homosexuals puts them in a special position. [1,2]Now we must go to divorce. Divorce has a lot to do with gay marriage. Remember that the whole debate is about marriage. When there is a divorce, it has a negative effect on children. Since homosexuals often break-up more than heterosexuals do, that makes a negative effect on children. Again, the fact that divorce has a negative effect on children is common sense. However, my opponent did not attack that in his refutations, he just asked why divorce matters.My opponent then attacks the study I used that shows homosexuals couples have a negative effect on children. However, that is only one of many studies. There are more. Most studies that claim that homosexual parents have no difference than heterosexual parents are flawed. [3,4,6]One article also proves that children need mothers and fathers and that families with only just mothers or fathers (homosexual couples) have problems. [6] Another study proves this. In fact it has lead to an increase in violence:"High rates of violence in lesbian and gay relationships finds significant support in the research. In a study Lockhart (1994) found that 90% of lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their partners during the 12 months prior to the study. Thirty-one percent reported one or more incidents of physical abuse." [7]Take NotePro dropped his argument on more gov. revenue with gay marriages. Sources1. http://tech.mit.edu...2. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)3. http://www.sciencedirect.com...4. http://faculty.law.miami.edu...5. http://www.billmuehlenberg.com...6. http://catholiceducation.org...7. http://narth.com...
Gay marriage should be legalized

"the government's job is to make laws that benefit society and heterosexuality does. Homosexuality does not." Would promoting equality be a form of benefitting society? Also, how is a heterosexual with no intention or capability to pro create "benefitting state interests" as my opponent says? An infertile heterosexual couple has the same "pro creating" abilities as a homosexual couple. "Many people only have sex when they are married. Obviously it has an effect. This is common knowledge. My opponent must not know what common knowledge is." My opponent starts by making a ludicrous claim that many people only have sex when they are married, and then my opponent goes on to attempt to insult me. In addressing my opponents claim that "many" people wait until marriage" I must ask does the word many only mean 5%? The Guttmacher Institute data (1953 to 2003) showed that 95% of Americans had sex before marriage. [1] "I am not arguing that divorce rates increase with gay marriage, but instead that divorce is a negative for children and yes, this is common knowledge." Actually, my opponent said in the Round 1 argument "Divorce has always been a negative influence on children. What we find is that homosexual relationships break up more than heterosexual relationships." Where is the relevance to this debate in my opponent"s argument that divorce is negative for children if it has nothing to do with gay marriage? "my study that gay marriage has a had a completely negative effect on children has gone unchallenged. Obviously my opponent agrees with me on that subject and thus gay marriage should be illegal." In regards to the study my opponent has provided, Gary Gates; who studies the LGBT population at UCLA's Williams Institute, said the study offers no clear conclusion about the relationship between parents' sexual orientation and a child's wellbeing. Instead, the results say more about the role of instability in childhood. "To determine whether a parental same-sex relationship affects a child's outcome, it is critical to know the length of these relationships, and whether the same-sex partners were actually living with, and parenting, the child for any length of time. The study does not assess this," [2] Other studies have found that children raised by same-sex parents are not different from children of heterosexual couples. The American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America and other organizations have issued public support for same-sex parenting. My opponent"s argument that gay marriage has a completely negative effect on children is not confirmed in any study. In fact, the director of the provided study; Mark Regnerus, said, "This study really can't answer any political questions" [2] Thank you for debating, I thoroughly enjoyed it. Vote Equality! [1] http://www.datehookup.com... [2]http://abcnews.go.com...
Gay marriage should be legalized

Rebuttals"Should heterosexual infertile people or those who do not desire to have children be banned from marriage as well? They too cannot or choose not to reproduce and "continue the survival of society" as my opponent says." Heterosexual marriages in which no children are present still will likely practice safe sex measures. That would mean that are still forming procreative type unions and are benefitting state interests. What the government wants is a climate for procreation and procreative unions so not procreative effect. If gay marriage cannot fulfill procreative type unions then the government has not reason to legalize it. My opponent has not provided the government's look on marriage while I have. I have provided a source proving that it is the government's job is to make laws that benefit society and heterosexuality does. Homosexuality does not. [1]"Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage... why should it be now on the topic of Gay marriage? "Many people only have sex when they are married. Obviously it has an effect. This is common knowledge. My opponent must not know what common knowledge is."Gay marriages can also bring financial gain to state and local governments."If the government felt the need to increase revenue, there are far better ways than to legalize marriage. It is much more simple to raise income taxes, corporate taxes, tariffs, etc. than to debate gay marriage, where other variables come in. Because marriage is not solely about government revenue, it would be unwise to legalize it solely for the purpose of raising revenue. That is why when Congress wants to raise taxes, it does not go into the gay marriage debate.I am sorry to hear that he cannot get my seventh source, which is where the graphs come in. It was an editing mistake on the part of the organization when making the graphs. This were taken fairly recently, just two years ago. I am not arguing that divorce rates increase with gay marriage, but instead that divorce is a negative for children and yes, this is common knowledge. [2,3,4]ConclusionIt have continued to prove that a procreative environment is what government wants. Its not looking for effect, but for an environment and gay marriage is alien to that environment. I have continued to prove that divorce has had a negative effect on children. Not just that, but my study that gay marriage has a had a completely negative effect on children has gone unchallenged. Obviously my opponent agrees with me on that subject and thus gay marriage should be illegal.Sources1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)2. http://www.divinecaroline.com...3. http://www.public.iastate.edu...4. http://abcnews.go.com...
Gay marriage should be legalized

Should heterosexual infertile people or those who do not desire to have children be banned from marriage as well? They too cannot or choose not to reproduce and "continue the survival of society" as my opponent says. Heterosexual marriage could remain important to society if homosexual marriage were to be legalized. Where in the legalization of homosexual marriage is the harming or hindering the marriage of heterosexuals? At one point in my opponents argument, they state "Because homosexuals do not create children, their marriage has no purpose and that is why it must remain illegal" Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage... why should it be now on the topic of Gay marriage? Gay marriages can also bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.[1] Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending.[2] The seventh source in which the images are provided seems to not work for me. In regards to those graphs, where was the data taken from and for how long were those statistics taken over? The graphs are comparing married heterosexual couples to homosexual relationships. That is not the same, at all. Also, the graphs state that divorced parents generally make bad parents.. I really don't agree with that terrible generalization. My parents are divorced and still love and care for me just as much, if not more. Actually, Massachusetts; which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.[3] The argument that divorce rates would be increased with the legalization of homosexual marriage is just untrue. Conclusion I have proven that Gay marriage would benefit society and it does not hinder children whatsoever. Also, the divorce rate may actually decline with the legalization of homosexual marriage. [1]Kathryn Perry, "The Cost of Gay Marraige - In Dollars and Cents," Christian Science Monitor, May 27, 2009 [2]American Psychological Association, "American Psychological Association Reiterates Support for Same-sex Marriage," www.apa.org, Aug. 11, 2010 [3]Nate Silver, "Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans," www.fivethirtyeight.com, Jan. 12, 2010
Gay marriage should be legalized

My CaseWhat is Marriage?In this debate, we must understand what is the role of marriage society and how the government should act when involved in marriage. I am sure that first and foremost, me and my opponent both agree that marriage is a secular institution not a religious one. There is a separation of church and state in the United States, so we must understand that. There is a reason marriage must only be heterosexual and not homosexual. I will explain this reason.Marriage in Society and GovernmentThe purpose of marriage is to continue the survival of society. With marriage, people create children for society continue. If heterosexual marriage did not exist, then there would be no society as it is a bond that brings a male and female together to create children. Homosexuals cannot create childre. If an entire society was made up of homosexuals then that society would soon not exist. This is why heterosexual marriage is important to society.The government's role is to keep society intact. Thus, homosexual marriage should not legalized because it does not benefit society. The government must create a procreative society in order to produce more children. Allowing heterosexuals to marry does just that. Because homosexuals do not create children, their marriage has no purpose and that is why it must remain illegal. [1,2,3,4,5]ParentingWe must also see what is best for children, who will be brought up in a society. Homosexuals can obviously adopt children, but is that a good idea? A study in July 2012 took up that task. What he found is that children with homosexual parents do worse in all catergories compared to their heterosexual counterparts. In addition, my opponent has brought up the question of marriages and relationships into the debate. This is about divorce. Divorce has always been a negative influence on children. What we find is that homosexual relationships break up more than heterosexual relationships. This proves that homosexual marriage has a negative effect on society. [6,7]Here are heterosexual marriages: Homosexual marriages: ConclusionI have proven that gay marriage should not be legal because it does not benefit society. It should also not be legal because it hurts children.Sources1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)2. "PROTECTING AMERICA'S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek3. "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school4. "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.5. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)6. Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)7. http://www.frc.org...;
Gay marriage should be legalized

I will start by stating my argument:Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples. Who has the right to stop two people from devoting their complete love for each other? And why? Gay marriage should be protected by the Constitution's obligations to liberty and equality. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is to label them as inferior and unworthy of our basic rights. Why is it not acceptable to discriminate against a persons race, but it is against their sexual orientation? Homosexual marriage rights will have no impairing effects on that of heterosexual couples. To claim that this legalization will hinder the sanctity of marriage is a ludicrous claim seeing as the divorce rate is already between 40% and 50%. To claim that marriage is a religious institution is ridiculous. Marriage was originally a religious institution in which daughters were sold for calfs. Should we revert back to this? It is after all the original form of marriage! Imposing your beliefs on them is annoying and pointless. If you don't agree with homosexuality, then don't be a homosexual. There is no need to impose your beliefs upon others and deny them happiness. Refusing someone their rights based upon their sexual orientation is wrong and ignorant. They are just as much of people as the rest, and they deserve their very basic intrinsic likes as everyone else also does. (The pursuit of happiness is one of those rights, by the way. ) Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to hearing your opening statement.
Drugs should be allowed in the United States

If you do illegal drugs, it is all on you and no one else. This is because you have your own brain and should know better than to do drugs if you do know the risks of it you know if can land you in jail and/or kill you. The United States should allow them because you (by you I mean everyone in the world) have a brain you can use it. If you could go to jail for it and or die from it, it should be your choice to do it or not.
Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part 2)

Onto his rebuttals. 'The 2nd premise states how design can be deduced. It says nothing about possibilities vs actualities. But with that in mind I would like to change the conclusion of the first argument. The conclusion should read Therefore it is rational to believe that humans have an intelligent cause. ' The point I was making with mar argument was that the premise hinted that the only way multiple parts could come to work together was design. It didn't explicitly say that, but it did heavily hint that. Not really bad, but I wanted to make the syllogism itself as unbiased as possible. 'Are you claiming that organisms that have multiple working parts working complimentary can be the result of something other than design ? , If your not claiming that, then what is your objection ? ' Yes, I am claiming that. I contend that organisms with multiple working parts are much more likely to be formed from evolution and not ID. 'Could you explain and show how Premise 1 which states Something exists either by design or accident or necessity excludes evolution ? Why doesn't the accident/non design of universal laws and the accident/non design of evolutionary process fit into the category of accident ? ' It excludes evolution because evolution is not entirely by 'accident'. Accident infers that there was an original cause, and there was a mistake in the process or whatever. The evolution of organisms from small, simple things to grander, more complex things is not entirely by chance. It contains a healthy dose of chance, but it is not purely by chance. 'As far as the category of accident, based on the deduction of complimentary working parts to justify the belief that humans are the result of design, and in the absence of any other arguments proving the contrary or at least being more plausible this belief is justified. ' Your argument rests on the fact that there are no arguments that are more plausible than that belief. I'd like to point to evolution, which explains complex organisms in a much more probable, evidential way than an intelligent creator designing everything from nothing. Let it be noted that ID has no evidential proofs. 'Con says "he is expected to fulfill that burden, and explain every inch of his assertions and claims. He needs to do so, or he will not have met his burden" Thanks for reminding me about my burden, allow me to return the favor. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ' I'd like to point out he still hasn't refuted my rebuttals. They still stand strong. Let it be known that he still hasn't addressed my final argument dealing with my burden of proof, which accurately showed how I already fulfilled mine. My burden of proof was to show that believing in ID was irrational. By my opponent's own terms, he should see where I'm going. He says that rational means that the belief in question must be supported by reason, else it is irrational. I have shown that ID is not supported by logic nor reasoning, thus rendering the belief in ID irrational. I fulfill my burden of proof, while my opponent has not, and therefore win the debate.
Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part 2)

Con says "The second premise has a huge 'can' in there. It infers that if something may have the possibility of being designed, it is designed. It does not account for evolution, and is thus a false dichotomy" Deduce 1. To reach (a conclusion) by reasoning. 2. To infer from a general principle; reason deductively: deduced from the laws of physics that the new airplane would fly. 3. To trace the origin or derivation of.http://www.thefreedictionary.com... The 2nd premise states how design can be deduced. It says nothing about possibilities vs actualities. But with that in mind I would like to change the conclusion of the first argument. The conclusion should read Therefore it is rational to believe that humans have an intelligent cause. Con says " It assumes that for ANY organism to have multiple working parts blah blah blah, it must have been designed" Are you claiming that organisms that have multiple working parts working complimentary can be the result of something other than design ?, If your not claiming that, then what is your objection ? Regarding argument 2, Con says "The Premise totally excludes evolution. It does not combine chance & the natural laws of the universe, so we can assume Premise 1 to be a false dichotomy." Could you explain and show how Premise 1 which states Something exists either by design or accident or necessity excludes evolution ? Why doesn't the accident/non design of universal laws and the accident/non design of evolutionary process fit into the category of accident ? Con says "The Statement gives an assertion without proof. It does not show how humans don't exist by accident nor necessity" In regards to necessity, humans don't exist cause they necessarily have to, humans could of not existed, and humans can cease to exist going into the future. As far as the category of accident, based on the deduction of complimentary working parts to justify the belief that humans are the result of design, and in the absence of any other arguments proving the contrary or at least being more plausible this belief is justified. Con says "he is expected to fulfill that burden, and explain every inch of his assertions and claims. He needs to do so, or he will not have met his burden" Thanks for reminding me about my burden, allow me to return the favor..................... "I will be the PRO, which means I claim that intelligent design is a rational belief. My opponent will be the CON, so will be arguing that intelligent design is an irrational belief. (PLEASE NOTE, their is no win by default here, both sides have to justify their side)" Over to Con
Is Intelligent Design a Rational or Irrational belief (Part 2)

My first argument was based on how design can be deduced (Using the car example) as an illustration. From this my first argument was . .. .. .. .. 1) Design occurs due to having an intelligent cause. 2) Design can be deduced by the observation of multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts. 3) Humans have multiple working parts working not just in themselves but working in complimentary with other working parts. 4) Therefore we can deduce that humans have design. 5) Therefore It is rational to deduce that humans have an intelligent cause. My second was 1) Something exists either by intent or non intent or necessity 2) Humans do not exist by non intent or necessity 3) Therefore humans exist by intent Once again, using the deduction as shown in the first argument, and showing the non necessity of human existence, the only other option was humans existing by intent. At the start of this debate the two sides made their claims. .. .. .. .. "I will be the PRO, which means I claim that intelligent design is a rational belief. My opponent will be the CON, so will be arguing that intelligent design is an irrational belief. " The question is, Have I as the PRO, shown that intelligent design is rational ? Has my opponent as the CON, shown that intelligent design is an irrational belief ? I presented my arguments, CON was not able to show them false, nor did Con show that intelligent design is irrational.