BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

why should they only be allowed to enjoy "most" rights why not all. people dont choose to be gay, they are born to be gay..choosing to be gay would mean choosing to be ridiculed, laughed at, and disliked by many. its not a choice they make willingly, its a choice they have to make because they were born this way.. If you would like to take religion into it go ahead..but dosent god accept all people for who they are and dosent the bible stress loving people for themselves...these people call themselves "good christans" well god is about accepting everybody so how is denying people..a way of religon and or god. and on top of that what happened to the seperation of the church and the state? Religon was seperated from goverment for a reason and has been seperated for this reason...there is no reason why religion should be brought into the battle. what if you had been born gay, would you want to be ridiculed for it?
Gay Marriage

This could be answered by merely saying: There's an option, to allow Same-Sex Marriage and risk angering many in the religious community who believe that not only shouldn't this be allowed, but is morally wrong and unjustifiable. This is hence why the Civil Partnership (UK) and Civil Union (US) was created, in order to adhere to and allow partners of the same gender to enjoy most of the rights that they'd be entitled to under marriage. Also, in many countries around the world, the US included, religion is too powerful in national politics, and well respected generally for the right of some to be traded for the rights of another some. I'm not debating the point from a religious perspective because I'm not religious, however I believe due to the circumstances in that marriage was and has been seen as a Christian coming together (regardless of the fact many people who aren't religious are married, they abide by the principles of that religion at the event, and so aren't seen as against the Will of God). This means that with Civil Unions people of same gender relationships can unite together without disturbing this. Because although I don't believe in the Will of God myself I do believe they're entitled to this opinion and due to homosexuality isn't recognised in many Christian communities (in terms of being born homosexual instead of making the choice, again I don't believe the Christian way), so in this instance the latter should be relatively acceptable. This may seem homophobic of the government of the said country to refuse same-sex marriage, however the religious understanding of the subject and importance of it remains too poor to simply introduce sanctions which in many respects infringe their rights (Christians as an example) and the detail of the said religion; and the Church in the Western world remains too powerful for this infringement to go unnoticed only for the sake of homosexual right to freedoms. In summery the reason behind me being against Same-Sex Marriage is because whilst homosexuality is real, and accepted within western communities, the respect held for those whom worship God and follow the Bible or even Quran needs to be addressed, and the argument in my eyes does not stand to allow a breach of that right for the topic.
Science damages curiosity.

Science is based around the idea that everything can be observed and explained. This means that nothing is left up to the imagination. However, if you DON'T believe in science, you are not bound to this viewpoint. If some things can NOT be explained, (For example, the age old question of existence), then the possibilities are limitless, and imagination flourishes. If there is one possibility for everything, however, then nothing is left up to the imagination. Everything has a logical explanation, and curiosity is not needed. The question my opponent and the audience are probably asking themselves is this: "Where is your proof"? As a kid, I always used to look up at the stars, and I used to wonder what they were and how they worked. As I grew older, my knowledge of science increased, and I gradually gained knowledge of the solar system. Stargazing is still fun to do occasionally, but it is never the same as it was then. The same probably goes for my opponent and the audience. Maybe it isn't stargazing, but every child has a large amount of curiosity, because they don't know how the world works. None of us really know how the world works, but we are gradually learning with the advancement of science. This is actually a good thing, because we can use this knowledge to make the world a better place. However, it does have a downside, and it is that with every discovery we make, curiosity becomes less and less needed.
leagalize recreational marijuana

while you make a good point i must disagree and call shenanigans on you countless studies have been done on the effect of marijuana, while this doesn't give us as actuate as we would like they are good representations. i am not a forensic scientist but i have done a bit of study in the field and one thing i have learned is that even though there may be multiple drugs in a persons system at the time there are ways of eliminating certain drugs as COD or cause of death by running certain test/examinations of the body. The argument that it makes you slower is a general misconception made by most people. in fact it has been proven the occasional use of marijuana improves the lungs ability to effectively use oxygen which as an experienced runner i can tell you for a fact is the key to going faster. as for the mental relation to slow i can not disagree or agree with you because there are no sufficient studies that prove your point that it makes you slower. in addition studies have proven that the effect of marijuana are very limited and not as lasting as you say. as for other drug, since the Netherlands has legalized marijuana they have seen a decrease in other drug use, this is because the drug is being distributed in a controlled environment rather then by a dealer where buyers of marijuana can be easily lured into buying and trying other drugs as well. there is no way to completely stop the use of marijuana it is to popular of a drug and to try will only waist time, money and resources. the best we can hope to do is to control and regulate use, the only way to do that is to legalize with all that being said i was hoping you'd consider my final point because that may be the most important, i said it before our policy here in the u.s in regards to legalization of marijuana do effect mexico, and the longer we criminalize it and the longer we give power to cartels the drug trade is simple they give drugs to the us in exchange for guns which in turn full the killing, this is why it so vital that we take a different approach and legalize marijuana. the longer we wait the more lives will lost. good luck to ya :)
leagalize recreational marijuana

Well I'll just jump right into it. Your "facts" about the deaths are somewhat accurate as to tobacco, alcohol, legal drugs, and aspirin, but the reason you don't have the number of deaths from Marijuana is because there are no statistics that back it up. Yes, you could go on the internet and find a website that said that no one dies from marijuana and that simply isn't true. Now you have to admit that a person smoking marijuana is usually doing other drugs. such as meth, crack, LSD, etc. But when any of those people are to pass (God bless there souls) and an autopsy is preformed and they find all these drugs in the persons system, it is dang near impossible to indicate which one of the drugs was to much and killed the person. While marijuana release a drug that makes you feel relaxed, people who use it will get in a sense comfortable to the feeling and the body will get use to it, (jumping into your point #2) and in some cases will hold on to it, making the person slower and less "there" if you will. And yes the drug will take a lasting effect that may stay for a hour, day, week, moth, so on and so on. your point (#3) I really don't have an argument for this point because there has not really been any serious research done to indicate marijuana does cause cancer, yes there has been stories that someone got cancer after they started to smoke marijuana but there is not enough evidence on either side weather it be (pro) or (con) to make a legit argument. you point (#4) This sort of jumps back into my point that depending on the person who smokes the marijuana and depending on the amount that is smoked can depend if there is any damage done to a persons brain. Thank you for taking the time to read this and I look forward to your response.
leagalize recreational marijuana

ok this debate may be different then most but whatever its all good for one thing i really don't care what you say as long as the arguments are on topic and at least semi well thought out. secondly you can call shenanigans this means if you think my argument doesn't make sense you can call me out on it and vice versa by stating shenanigans but you have to give some reason(s) why shenanigans has been called. other then that thats about it
Communism is a viable form of government

I shall now refute. My opponent offers little evidence to support his claim of communism being a viable form of government. He states that the motivation comes from most communists wanting the system to "succeed", and that everyone has to do a certain amount of work in order to receive benefits from the government, such as housing. While the second part of that statement is true, the first is just a blind assumption. Unless opponent provides evidence for this claim, it will not be taken into consideration. As to the second part of this statement, there is a minimum "quota" citizens have to fulfill before they can receive their needs, as opponent states. After that they are free to slack, and not to try further. Thus, the real "motivation" in a system like this is absent. After they get the first part done, they do not want to do the rest. Why should they? They don't get any more. As well, I find an analogy about communism to be another great choice for my argument. Suppose you have two animals. One without wings and one with wings, both the same species, just a different modification. A country like the U. S. would allow that creature to roam free using the ability it has and use it to the best of its ability. Communist countries, on the other hand, feel that everything should be "equal" for everyone. Thus they clip that animal's wings, unwilling for it to reach its full potential. The ones that have a natural ability for a certain task are punished, and the ones that don't face nothing whatsoever. The government is essentially punishing those ahead of others, in the name of "equality". That's an ability wasted that they could have used in the country such as the U. S. ! "I'd also like to reiterate that most counties would look poor if they went communist. This is because there is no longer a class gap. " But those classes would be on the lower-end of things instead of some on the lower, some on the higher. "Middle-class" in the country like the U. S. is considered the average, while communism has its own average as everything is equal. Those averages in communist countries are much lower than those of the U. S. ' as all things are distributed equally in communist countries, giving no opportunities for those who want to break free of the shell of poorness. Thus proving my point once more. Awaiting opposition's args.
Communism is a viable form of government

Thank you for your argument. My opponent asked the very important question of where the motivation would come from. The motivation comes from the fact that most communists embrace the system and want to see it succeed. They know that by slacking they can bring about its demise. Also everyone has to do a certain amount of work as a requirement for the government provided housing and other ammeneties. The people will still strive for better but just not as individuals but as a team/community. I know this concept is hard to grasp as in western society we are taught its every man for himself but the fact that everyone works together is what makes communism so unique. I'd also like to reiterate that most counties would look poor if they went communist. This is because there is no longer a class gap.
Communism is a viable form of government

Thank you for this debate. I will be arguing on the side of Con, or that communism should not be a viable form of government. Communism is, by definition, "a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs." In other words, everything is shared equally amongst all people. At first, it seems like a good practice to have. Nobody loses anything! However, nobody really "gains" either. In a communist state, where we each obtain an equal portion of wealth. One small problem with this: where's the motivation? The problem with communist countries is exactly the type of government there is: communism. Since everything is shared equally, there is no real "need", for a lack of a better word, to strive to become better or make something that could change the world. After all, we all get the same things anyway. So why try to make something better, when you'll get the same amount of credit as some other slacker? The reason the United States is the start of many innovations is because the people have the freedom to succeed and fail. If there's no failure, there's no room to succeed. Failure must come first before succeeding. People such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Mark Zuckerberg have all "failed" at some point in their life. And they've become extremely influential in our world today! Without those three people, we would probably be nowhere near where we are today. It's because of their ideas, their aspirations, and the freedom for them to choose, fail, and succeed, that the world is so successful. Many people in America have started off poor and become great people. Many others were not as fortunate. The reason why America is so great is because the people have that freedom to ascend and rise above the rest, or to fall below them. The people have the ability to do these things and to make great things for our current world. "But communism has no poverty!" But most communist countries aren't super rich either. The exception being China, as they make virtually our entire lives. I await Pro's arguments. Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org... http://tinyurl.com...
Communism is a viable form of government

Many people associate communism with tyrants like Stalin and Lenin. however the system in itself cannot be made out to be bad. it strives for equality for all regardless of your employment. Everyone is given a job. The reason why communist countries look poor is because everyone is equal. It shows how poor many countries actually are as the rich cant hide away the poor as there is no rich and poor. Tyrants such as Stalin and Lenin should not be seen as interlinked with the system. They are tyrants in there own. if the corruption in communist systems could be stopped it would be one of the most advanced forms of government
Resolved: In a fight with prior preparation, Batman would beat Ozymandias(Adrian Veidt)

I stand before you today to make the claim that Adrian Veidt (Ozymandias) would beat Batman in a fight. The fight will be judged in the same format as the popular t.v. show on Spike TV known as "Deadliest Warrior". Both characters abilities and traits will be taken into consideration and then input into a computer simulation that runs 1000 virtual battles and judges the victor based on who wins the most battles. Voters please use your imagination to achieve this affect. 1st Round-Acceptance 2nd Round- Arguments 3rd Round- Rebuttals 4th Round-Rebuttals, No new arguments No semantics, no PIS, only comic book evidence/canon databases will be allowed By no PIS, I mean no citing of inconsistent evidence, evidence that goes against other things found in the comics, and evidence that resulted from a convenient plot constructed device. Example: How Superman seems to conveniently forget a lot of his abilities and how strong he really is, and allowing himself to be beat by far weaker people. Please don't accept this debate if you're just a crazed Batman fan with hardly any knowledge of the character. All questions should be asked in the comment box. http://www.quickmeme.com...
Lincoln and FDR were fascists.

You say Lincoln acted within the law. But where in the Constitution is the authority granted a president to shut down newspapers and jail editors who disagree with him? You ask for a credible source that Lincoln shut down newspapers and jailed editors. See here: http://www.csulb.edu... for an academic source. This is a widely known fact, and frankly, you should be embarassed that you're unaware of this. Any serious book on Lincoln says this, though most of his worshipful "historians" make excuses and downplay his tyranny. You concede that FDR was a spoilsist, but make the excuse that "everybody does it." Yes, but when the government is involved in more activities (as with the New Deal), the opportunity for spoils is that much larger. Lincoln and FDR did NOT work within the law. THE CONSTITUTION AND ITS ORIGINAL INTENT IS THE LAW, and they abrogated that more than any other dictators who have ascended to the office. Adam Smith has LITERALLY NOTHING TO DO with the financial ruin we find ourselves in, and LINCOLN DOES. Adam Smith was not for fiat-money central banking, but Lincoln was. Adam Smith was not for a gigantic, burdensome welfare state, but FDR was. Blaming the coming great depression on Smith is just as absurd this time as it was in 1929. You take a non-inflation adjusted look at one sector of the economy and say that FDR's Fascist New Deal helped the entire economy. How absurd! Redirecting productive wealth to worthless agricultural endeavors, confiscating the people's gold and revaluing it versus the dollar, and yeah, farm output can be improved. Unemployment? Obviously, hiring one man to dig a ditch and another to fill it reduces unemployment. It also redistributes wealth in an uneconomical fashion, wherein no new wealth is created. Lincoln and FDR did not lift the nation out of tragedy. Lincoln caused the tragedy and killed 650,000 Americans in the process. FDR worsened the tragedy started by Hoover's socialistic precursor to the New Deal, and then paved the way for Truman to mass murder Japanese civilians. Your fascist interpretation of the Constitution is intolerable. You don't understand: THERE NEED NOT BE A PROVISION FOR SECESSION SPELLED OUT IN THE CONSTITUTION -- ALL RIGHTS NOT SPECIFICALLY DENIED THE STATES ARE RETAINED BY THE STATES. Fascism = big government and big business colluding to control the economy. That is what it means and your spin cannot change the meaning of the word. Not only were Lincoln and FDR Arch-Fascists, but so is my opponent.
Lincoln and FDR were fascists.

If we're going to do this, let's do it out right. I believe that Lincoln and FDR impeded on the Constitution with care and only enough to keep this Nation together. I know that you disagree with this claim so, I will give you this first round to lay out your reasons for why you think that they had the will to become dictators of a fascist government. Either by their actions or their words, prove this claim to me.
Indiana's New Law

C 1 Reading through this text I have found that one doesn't need a religion behind their statements as long as they claim them to be indeed religious. "Sec. 5. As used in this chapter, "exercise of religion" includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.(1)" That means that you can interpret a text or religion to discriminate against groups that you just don't like, and that you don't even really have to back it up. I can declare that, though it had nothing to do with the bible, I can refuse service to Mexicans, and use the bible as my reasoning. This means that instead of being a law passed for religious freedom, this is a bill allowing and even promoting bigots to do as they wish using the guise of religion, which should offend the religious people in Indiana and around the world. Sources 1: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act
There is a need for old age homes in this generation

Since my opponenet has forfeited, I am not exactly sure what to do, so I will continue my argument.Over 2/3 of people over the age of 80 live in communities independently. Due to the fact that almost 50% of fires are created by people over the ages of 70, this means that their is an increased threat for disaster in the community in which they live (similiar to my round 1 argument, but still a point none the less) [1].Also, many elderly people find their lives boring due to the fact that they have nobody their own age to talk with. A retirement home provides such a situation in which elderly people can have social lives again, even though it is under somewhat strange situation [2]. I would also like to quell all the rumors about how retirment homes are evil and treat the elderly people terribly. A large portion of people (including my own grandmother) would prefer to live in a retirement home than their current arrangments. Sources: [1] http://www.usfa.fema.gov...[2] http://www.elmwoodvfrd.org...
There is a need for old age homes in this generation

Since I only have ten minutes I will keep this short. I have mixed feelings about retirement homes, however I will argue for the pro side of the statement that retirement homes still have a use in society. For one I feel that a retirement home is a good place to provide support and structure in to elderly peoples lives. Also, it helps the children of the elderly people in question feel both liberated (as terrible as that sounds) and relieved that they know that their parent(s) is/are safe. Another point is that elderly people can be a threat to society. One study shows that in people over 80 years of age over 800,000 deaths occur annually (in the US) due to fires that they accidentally created. If these people had lived in a structured and secure environment, these deaths would have never happened [1]. Obviously there is the argument that it is morally wrong to lock away your parents in a retirement home for the rest of their lives, however the pros clearly outweigh the cons in this situation. Sources: [1] http://www.usfa.fema.gov...
There is a need for old age homes in this generation

In this time and age, where money is the main aim for many people, parents who spend all their money and time to raise a child, are finally rejected by the very same child, and are dumped of at a pleasant looking 'Old Age Home' for the 'good' of their parents. Now for people looking at these homes from the outside, they look like heaven on earth, with anything you can ask for. But the parents who are sent there endure a feeling of pain that cannot be described- the pain of rejection. Why do we have to reject the parents who accepted us as their child? Our mothers brought us into this world, dont we have to see that we take care of them till they leave it? Therefore, I say that there is no need for old age homes in this generation.