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

True. Government can't stop people from making personal choices. But look at what the bible says, "18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)" and, "20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV). In addition, the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is said to be about homosexuality. After all, Sodom is another word for sodomy, meaning homosexuality. Here's the verse, "And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to you this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may KNOW them". (Genesis 19"5). Notice the phrase, "we may know them." That word is used in the story of Adam and Eve to refer to love. Specifically sexual love. The verse is Genesis 4:1: And Adam KNEW his wife. The reason homosexuality is a sin in the Bible is because the idea of a man and a woman coming together to produce children is human nature. Most people would agree it is natural to for a man and a woman to come together and have children. Look at all the animals. They do the same thing: Sexual Reproduction not Asexual Reproduction. Would the creator of the world want his creation to be forcibly changed against his will? Let human nature go about its own ways but if a person wants to violate it themselves, it's their choice. I can't stop people from making bad choices. As for gay marriage being legalized, I can't agree with it. Although I have a lot of libertarian leaning beliefs, the gay marriage is more about violating states" rights than it is about protecting personal liberties. Although many libertarians support gay marriage, what most of them don't realize is that state laws on marriage is all about giving out a license for the purpose of taxes, property, and living laws. States do not regulate what people do in their own personal lives. It just determines tax laws and determines how it's given out. No one has a civil right to a state license, just to make a personal choice in their personal lives. If a state wants to determine how it gives out it's state license, then let it. State license may make it legal, but spiritual love is beyond that. Thank you and I yield to my opponent .
Ethical principles of veganism

Every human on earth has higher logic capacity than animals. No defect of any kind can turn your brain from logical processing into animalistic survive or die mentality. Technology doesn't mean smartphones it means and type of tool, No matter how basic, That is manufactured for the purpose of aiding it's user. Note this doesn't include anything found naturally such as berries, Leaves, Or herbs that animals use for food or camouflage. why is everything else I said irrelevant, It's directly related to the ethics of veganism. You can't just say "that doesn't count" to everything to make yourself seem right.
Ethical principles of veganism

but that's where you're wrong, There is a massive line between animals and humans. Animals don't have significant intelligence, Any form of technology, Societies, And any other defining properties that could give them rights. Plus, You've said it yourself that it's HUMAN rights. I'd like to bring up a scenario that turns the veganism boycotting of animal products seem much more unethical than just eating animal products. Lets say, A person who is non-vegan walks into a supermarket, And walks up to a carton of eggs. Lets also say that they also need eggs for something. He would pick up the carton, And use them in some form. Now, The same scenario, But with one variable changed. The person is vegan. They get to the eggs and do not take them, And a carton of 12 eggs has been disposed of for going bad, Because if one person who would have bought the eggs, But did not because of personal preference, The eggs are wasted.
Ethical principles of veganism

As this is the last debate round I'd like to thanks pro for the debate. 1. The rocks thing was part of the technology, An example of an animal with basic technology is apes that can use rocks to smash open hard shells. 2. This is also false, As even in ancient India, Outcasts were part of society. Untouchables are the lowest members of the caste system, And as the name suggests, They were outcasts. yet again, I'd like to bring up the fact that, While it would fail the test on its own, The baby is still human, And the code of ethics only applies to the average member of a species. The average human would definitely pass. now lets watch this debate fall into the endless pile of good debates that get no votes, And ends up in a draw.
Ethical principles of veganism

> Definitely can pick up rocks with a purpose for them 1. I don't see how that signals a capacity to reason, An animal is able to pick up rocks, Doesn't mean it's in capable of reasoning in any significant way. 2. Outcasts are, By definition, Lacking in the 'Society Membership' trait. But we've only got one more round left, So I'll try to give you a clearer hypothetical. Say you went to the more unexplored places of the Earth. You found a baby that was abandoned by its parents. It isn't not capable of reasoning, It isn't a member of society, And it lacks any form of technology. Under your ethical system, It's eligible for slaugher. So, Do you bite the bullet on that?
Ethical principles of veganism

The thing is, I never said that the mentally disabled are lacking in these traits. The have a limited ability to reason, Definitely can pick up rocks with a purpose for them, And even the people with such severe capacities to be in an asylum have a societal standing, As outcasts. And also i accept that the boycott is out of ethics, I just thought that the fact that buying the eggs and putting them to some purpose would justify the sacrifice, Rather than the alternative of letting the go to waste. If the case, Then I will accept that as the reason for the ethical boycott. I agree that i was indeed focus on the wrong thing in the last part, But i just thought the incorrect thing about the issue for a moment, Which was my fault.
Ethical principles of veganism

I think I've got a decent understanding of the aforementioned traits, But I nonetheless appreciate your elaboration. Your response to my hypothetical was > I'd like to say that mental disabilities, Do not change the fact that they are still humans. This means that, On a scale of humanity, The mentally disabled are outliers. Thus not affecting the human race's standing on the ARC. Sure, They're still humans, But you have to remember that I asked you to name a trait that justifies killing animals for food but not humans. If you name a trait or traits that certain humans are going to lack, Then it logically follows that those certain humans are eligible for slaughter. If you mean to include all humans, You probably should have named humanity as the trait, But then I'd like a clear affirmation of you abandoning those three traits and moving on to something else. Boycotts can be done out of ethical reasons, So I'd still say it's philosophical. Anyway, You say this > 300 MILLION people would have to be vegan in order for the dairy industry to suffer. I don't see how this invalidates the ethical principles of veganism. You're now arguing about the pragmatic side of things, Which is completely seperate from ethics.
Ethical principles of veganism

So, I agree with the list of three traits, However, Allow me to expand on the topics. 1. Rationality. This means that the creature has the ability to reason things. Such as "If i do x, Y will always happen" this is the most basic hurdle that is in this code, And most animals are able to reason to a minute degree. 2. Society membership. The creature can form groups and collaborate with other creatures of its species. Forming packs that move from place to place, Or set up a home area with areas designated for food or sheltered areas. This hurdle wipes out the most animals, As usually animals just kinda do their own thing. Birds, Wolves, Apes, And probably some kind of fish are all that are left. 3. Basic Technology. The creature can combine naturally occurring objects to aid its life, Such as two rocks used to break a hard shell. This removes everything but apes, Which are illegal to kill. Therefore, Giving them the RIGHT to life and habitat protection. I hope that list cleared some things up. I'll be referring to it as the ARC or "animal rights code". Now, With that part out of the way, I'd like to say that mental disabilities, Do not change the fact that they are still humans. This means that, On a scale of humanity, The mentally disabled are outliers. Thus not affecting the human race's standing on the ARC. I'd like to thank you for clearing up that veganism is less of a philosophy, And more of a boycott. I'd like to return the favor by clearing up the problem of this boycott. As the eggs example is the easiest one to build on, I'll keep using it. A chick costs about $2. 50, And feeding it to maturity costs, Let's just say $25 worth of oat feed, Because I don't raise chickens and wouldn't know this. So to raise a chicken to the point that it could lay eggs would cost $27. 50. Then to keep it alive, Lets just say $75 in feed so it's now $102. 50 to raise one chicken. Now for the ridiculous part. Chickens lay 530 eggs on average in their lifetime. This is where the problem kicks in. ONE EGG pays at the very minimum price, The full price of the chick (which makes sense, Because eggs=chicks). Multiply 2. 5 by 530, And one chicken pays for itself 13 times over. That would mean that 300 MILLION people would have to be vegan in order for the dairy industry to suffer. oof.
Ethical principles of veganism

First of all, Sorry for brushing off the second part of your comment as irrelevant, Without explaining why. I was feeling very lazy when I posted that. I'll concede that it's in fact pertinent to our discussion. So, Earlier, I said, There is no trait(s) absent in an animal, Which if absent in a human, Would cause us to justify slaughtering humans for food. The traits you've put furth seem to be 1 - Rationality 2 - Technology 3 - Society membership The problem with this is that there are humans who lack these traits. What about a mentally disabled human, Who's in a asylum? Is it okay to kill them? If you don't mind me going the hypothetical route, What if you encountered a retarded human in the wild? Again, Your logic tells us it's totally fine to slaughter them. Eggs being wasted isn't unethical. I mean, That's the goal of veganism. To encourage people not to buy animal products. It's good that eggs aren't being bought, Because that means less people are contributing to the dairy industry.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

the reasoning is very simple. I have to admit I, as a very simple human being, albeit with an analytical turn of mind, I found the vast majority of my opponents evidence to the nothing more than ego massage on the part of its authors. Who simply wanted, or appeared to want, to seem more clever than anybody else. However, I still feel the simplest reason reasoning to prove that everything has a beginning is to go back to the chicken / egg situation. Every egg has a beginning, it begins when it is formed inside the chicken. However, it is only an egg, nothing more. When it is fertilised it has a complete change of state, and slowly develops into a cheque. That change of state has a beginning, the moment of fertilisation, it also has a cause, the mating of the Cockrell and the hen. A piece of music, whether it be classical or contemporary music of any variety has a beginning. That beginning is when the composer plays, or, writes down the first note of the composition. the cause of that composition being made is the desire of the composer to hear the end result. The journey in a car has a beginning, that beginning is when you get into the car start the engine engaged here and drove off. The cause of the journey is the need to go to the destination. When you next season meal, think about the beginning of that meal. That meal began when you, your mother, or your wife decided that you needed something to eat. That led to gathering the ingredients together preparing them and cooking a meal. The cause of that meal being produced was the desire to make sure that you don't starve, or become unhealthy. I could go on and on and on, and often do. However, we still come back to the fact that however you decide the universe started. Whether from a preformed universe in stasis, which was then activated and began to grow to the universe we know today, or because it started from a small seed of matter which was expanded into the universe. No matter how you believe it started, it has developed according to a definite pattern, and has turned into an extremely precise mechanism which allows organisations like NASA to launch rockets to any destination, knowing that, because the universe is precise, they have been able to work out precisely when was the most advantageous time to launch the rocket. Anything which comes from nothing, or from a proto-universe in stasis, has a beginning. And for it to develop in such an organised manner. It also has a cause. Not only that, it must have a super intelligent cause, and superpowerful, in that the one who caused it was able to guide is development along precisely the pattern you wished it to develop along. Ergo, The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound, since it works in every model to which you apply it.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

my opponent in this debate comes up with some very interesting and completely unprovable statements which are not demonstrable in any sense. However, it is very easy to demonstrate that everything does have a beginning, and a cause. B theory, which I confess I had never before heard of, does not truly have any rational basis in it. However, even were it to be true, it still had a beginning. Why? Quite simply, and completely logically, something caused this proto-universe, for want of a better term, to change its state into what we see around us today. That moment to change is still a beginning, and is even more in need of a cause than the a theory. After all, if you have something in a completely stable state, then it's change point is a beginning. If only that change once the change has started. It no longer is what it was. Another factor is that the only way B theory could apply is if it existed in its static form before time existed. Therefore, it's beginning coincided with the beginning of time. Thus I find it impossible for the proposition not not to be both true and valid. My previous illustration of the chicken and the egg indicates that everything does indeed have a beginning. There are so many other things that illustrate the idea of things having a beginning. The beginning the television. The beginning of radio. The beginning of each new day. All have a beginning. And all have a cause. For all things to have both the beginning, and a cause, there has to be a force, a controlled force, behind their beginning. The absolute precision, and interconnectedness, of everything in this universe dictates that that cause is not only sentience, but highly intelligent. We choose to call that cause God, He chose to call himself Jehovah.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

as my opponent rightly says, I have not yet provided any arguments, nor did I intend to. The first round was simply one for setting out my stall. Come to that. I don't see any devastating, undermining, even damaging argumentation in your second post either. However, if, as the original formulator of this resolution states, proposition one is found to be true, then according to proposition be conclusion C is the only possible outcome. If proposition 2 is found to be false then according to proposition 2, conclusion C has a negative outcome. Therefore technically, as any psychologist would tell you, the argument is valid. because the conclusion is controlled by the combination of the two propositions, and that is technically the definition of a valid argument of that type. I covered just such arguments in one of my Open University modules. As for proposition 1,that can only be true, as science has many times demonstrated. This has been demonstrated by things such as the big bang theory. How can one demonstrate this. What do you have a dinner? Where did it come from? Let us assume for the sake of argument that you had chicken. Did the chicken have a beginning? What was to chicken before it was a chicken? The obvious answer is an egg. Was the egg a chicken? The obvious answer to that is that unless the egg fertilised, it could not be and would not be a chicken at any point before it eventually dissipated back to its original elements. An egg, therefore, is the beginning of the chicken provided it is fertilised. Otherwise, it remains an egg. Therefore, the chicken has a beginning. the cause of the beginning of that chicken was the fertilisation of the egg. Thus, it is forever thing that has ever existed. It all had a beginning. The only question is what was the beginning and where did it come from? Even if the big bang theory of the formation of everything is true, where did what every exploded because that big bang come from? Is that the beginning of everything? If you study the universe as it is, one thing we will find absolutely remarkable is the precision that is found in the way the universe operates. It is so precise that they can plot accurately where every star every planet will be in the future. It is so precise that if NASA want to send a rocket to Mars, or Venus, they can work out exactly when is the best time to send out rocket to ensure that it reaches its destination does not miss it. Where else do you find that sort of precision? Even the Swiss watch of the finest make cannot match that precision. And yet, to believe that accurate the Swiss watch has to have a designer. Is it not, therefore, very logical to assume that the universe had a designer?
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

My contributions to this debate, whilst few of them will be scriptural, will still be based around the thought contained at Romans 1:19-22 19 because what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. 20 For his invisible [qualities] are clearly seen from the world"s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable; 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their unintelligent heart became darkened. 22 Although asserting they were wise, they became foolish. My only hope is that my opponent will stick by his own role, unrestricted part for two simply a conclusion of his previous arguments, as I shall. Unless otherwise stated, the evidence I shall present will come from "The Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute" volume 9. ISBN 0-89870-809-5.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument For God's Existence Is Sound

ArgumentP1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.P2: The universe began to exist.C: Therefore, the universe has a cause.Rules/ StipulationsThe burden will be on Pro to demonstrate that the KCA is a sound argument. My burden is to undermine the argument, and/ or the support for it. The first round will not be for acceptance, as my opponent will make his opening argument in the first round. However, in round 4, Pro must simply put:"No argument will be posted here as agreed."PS. My opponent also has to show that the hypothetical cause must be personal, otherwise the argument is not really an argument for God. Also, I would respectfully ask that nobody who has been a debate on the KCA with me recently accept this debate. I want to keep it fresh.
Marching Band is technically a Sport Attempt #3 (Please read the rules)

This is like my third attempt on this debate topic. Warning: You must follow each and every one of the following rules. Many times, people don't follow these rules that I give out. It's important for you to read these rules. Failure to follow these rules will result in your chances of victory decreasing. Since, the voting style is just "choose winner", it'll be likely that voters will vote for the person who have executed the rules accordingly. Of course, these rules apply to me as well. If you don't know already, I can get very angry. It pisses me off when people don't know how to read simple instructions, then they slander you when they were the ones who infringed the regulations in the first place. Debate Schedule Rules Round 1: Acceptance and Greetings - Just simply say, "I accept." Do not state your thesis or any argument in this round. You do not have to exactly say "I accept." You are free to word your greeting to your desired interpretation. Notice that these are GREETINGS!!! Greetings are not the same as arguments. So many of my opponents have failed to follow this rule because they frivolously just state their arguments in the first round. I want you to become fully aware of that. If you don't know what an argument is, it's an exchange statement from two divergent sides. Round 2: Thesis Statement and Initial Arguments - In this round, you are required to formulate a one-sentence thesis statement. Following this thesis, you are required to come up with at least 3 arguments supporting your thesis. Please list these arguments numerically and separate your thesis from your arguments. You are also required to post at least one source for each argument you state. Round 3: Additional Arguments and/or Rebuttals - If you have more arguments that you forgot to state in Round 2 and want to state in Round 3, you are free to do so. But, the same rules for your arguments from Round 2 still apply. You are required to rebut your opponent's arguments in this round. The only rule for the rebuttals is that you must type a paragraph for each rebuttal. Also, separate your rebuttal statements from your additional arguments. Round 4: Rebuttals ONLY - This is the same from Round 3 and the same rules still apply. It's basically rebutting the rebuttals from Round 3. Round 5: Concluding Statements and Salutations - You are required to type only a paragraph in this round (3-5 sentences). In these 3-5 sentences, you must restate your thesis (in a different way) and say your good byes. Additional Debate Rules Rule #1: No insulting Rule #2: I am allowed to change, add, or completely remove any of set rules I desire. Rule #3: If you have any concerns or questions about the debate rules, ask them in the comments and we'll work it out there. Debate Information Time to Argue: 72 Hours Argument Max: 8,000 Characters
Competitive cheerleading is a sport

Well cheer leading isn't my specialty, really this was a bit out of my element to have done this debate. You still didn't say anything of the US court ruling I placed there on how it was stated that cheer leading is not a sport. It was done by the US court of appeals to state that it's not a sport. I'm no cheerleader, but i can put both my legs behind my head and the cheerleaders I know can only do one leg. Either this is something people with Russian blood can do unlike others (probably isn't) or you don't have to be a cheerleader to do this. BTW is this correct grammar of what you put? "Also, cheerleaders only get their hair and makeup done because can be fabulous" Since when has saying "because can" been right grammar? Not in Russia -_-
Competitive cheerleading is a sport

Okay obviously you don't know anything about the world of cheerleading... At my last competition we got 1st place (Same thing as winning) and we got 95/100 points. Also, cheerleaders only get their hair and makeup done because can be fabulous, do backflips, lift people over our heads,raise up our feet over our heads and dance all at the same time. Sounds like jealousy.