BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Sexual relations with animals should be allowed

Dear Candice. I agree with you on your most basic and fundamentally important point; animal abuse is a terrible thing and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. It is, however, not as hard as you might think, to determine whether or not the desired animal is concentious. Almost any given species of animal has its own natural mating behavior. We, humans, are an intelligent species and can therefore learn to recognize this specific behavior, and if that is what we prefer, act accordingly. Many species engage in sexual activities with the consent of both of the involved parties, this is simply a fact, and cannot be denied. Not all animals mate by abusing each other, do they? I know that the man or the woman planing to seduce a given sheep, will not share the typical glass of wine over a romantic candlelit dinner, in order to do so. I also know that the man or the woman will not flirt with the sheep, or try to seduce her in any verbal way. The man, or the woman, will observe the sheep's behavior and determine whether or not intercourse is desired. Finally, I will ask you to think about the following; How do we, humans, determine if intercourse with each other is desired? It is indeed very rare to simply ask about it; "hey, would you like to mate with me now?" I think not. We do it just like all the other animals, we observe each other, we touch, feel , and look at each other in a certain way. Most of the time, we use body language to determine weather or not intercourse is desired. We can, indeed, do the same in regard to animals.
Sexual relations with animals should be allowed

Let me start by making it clear that this debate is not some sort of a sick joke. Sexual relations with animals have been a part of the human culture for a long time. Some nations allow their citizens to have sexual relations with specific animals, others do not. Iï¿½m not talking about underdeveloped countries in this context, examples of countries that allow this sort of behavior are Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, Russia and Germany. I would never have sexual relation with other animal species than humans, frankly, I find it utterly disgusting, and wish that nobody would ever find a need to do this sort of a thing. That is, however, not the case. Some people simply feel an urge to do this, regardless of what other people think. Who am I to judge them?
Sexual relations with animals should be allowed

Well, Candice - have the lambs stopped screaming? As I stated earlier, I am not arguing in favor of animal abuse. Of course it should not be legal to have sex with animals whose' genitalia is too small to en devour the intercourse. Arguing in favor of such a thing would be utterly absurd. I seem to have convinced you on the subject of our former argument; we can indeed see whether or not some animals desire intercourse. Since you have not presented further arguments against this point, I consider that case as closed. This is a good thing, because that tells me that this is a mature debate; I will listen to, and consider your arguments carefully and you are doing the same. You made a very important point in your argument; how can animals protect themselves from abuse, since they are unable to speak? Raping animals can of course, and will not be tolerated. This issue has to be handled carefully by the respective authorities just like any other social problem. Consider this; Why do we allow people to have children without keeping an eye on them until the child can speak? Parents can, and sometimes do, abuse their children. This is a disgusting problem, and I wish I wouldn't be forced to bring it up, it is, however closely related to the issue you brought up. The answer is trust Cadice. We trust parents because most of them would never harm their children. We trust people to behave in an ethic manner, even when we are not watching. When we find out that people have failed the trust we put in them, we put them behind bars and punish them or try to fix them. The same goes for our debate. A man found guilty of abusing animals in some way should be charged, found guilty, and put behind bars. We must, however, trust, until our trust is broken. The last argument was about whether or not people should be allowed to marry the animals they find themselves to be in love with. This could be good material for another debate, but I will not discuss that issue here, but will only say that I would not allow such a thing. Some people do disagree with me on this subject, but so be it, for now, at least. I have answered all of the concerns you presented in the first two rounds by now. I ask you to consider my arguments carefully, without prejudice. Let me finish by asking you a simple question; what if the animal has the initiative for intercourse? Do we have the right to forbid other people to enjoy that initiative in their own privacy? I think that the answer is no, we do not have the right to meddle in other peoplesï¿½ business in that manner. What other people do in their own homes is none of my business, as long as it is not hurting anybody. Thank you.
Piercings should not be allowed until the again of 14.

if a person under the age of 14 wants a piercing... and the parents are either ok with them getting a piercing.. or actually Want them to get a piercing... then they ought to be able to get a piercing. I admit I happen to think CERTAIN piercings on children would be Rather Inappropriate.. and I might seek to have those which seem to be reflective of child abuse of some sort Prevented... but if it's a simple ear piercing... and the child and parents either want it or are ok with it... then it ought to be allowed to happen.
No one deserves to go to Hell

The full resolution is as it reads, no one deserves to go to hell,..not even Hitler. Burden of Proof:Pro is to affirming, using Logic and Reasoning, that no one deserves to go to hell. Con is to prove, using Logic and Reasoning, that people can deserve to go to hell. This means that citing scripture can be used as evidence, but is not proof. If the Bible says some people should go to hell, pointing that out does not actually prove this action is logical, fair, or justified. By Accepting this debate, you agree to the following:1. Hell is merely the name we give to the concept of unending transcendent punishment after death. 2. The soul exists. 3. Hell punishes sinful souls. 4. God created all souls.5. 5,000 character limit6. Round 1 is for acceptance onlyYou may use whatever religion you wish to justify your position. However, remember that the burden of proof requires you to prove the action of sending souls to hell logical, fair, or justified, so scripture will not fulfill the burden.
No one deserves to go to Hell

Thank you, 000ike, for your response. I have agreed with my opponent on every point he's made up until the third and final round, where he contradicts his previous statements at nearly every syllable. There are a few points I could go into detail about. For instance, he claims that God is the moral standard by which we measure the actions we "ought" to do. This contradicts his most precious contention that we have no free will, as actions that we "ought" to do implies actions that we "can" do. But most importantly, my opponent himself asserts "If God exists as the being which decides who does and does not go to heaven, then morality is the board of laws through which one would be accepted in heaven." Therefore, God decides what is moral and what isn't moral, despite our own perceptions. If that's the case, then when God sends a soul to Hell, it IS justified. Let me explain this scenario a bit more articulately. There are only two possibilities: 1. When God sends a soul to Hell, it is moral. 2. When God sends a soul to Hell, it is immoral. If the former is true (which my opponent seems to think is the case), then as I've said, Hell IS justified for whichever souls are sent there. If the latter is true, then God is doing an immoral act by sending them there, and deserves the punishment of Hell Himself. It is logically impossible for those souls to not deserve Hell AND for God to be moral. It is equally logically impossible for those souls to deserve Hell AND for my opponent to win this debate (as it would go against his original proposition). Finally, I will address the only remaining challenge posed by my opponent: the challenge to prove that God sends people to Hell. I cannot prove this, ladies and gentlemen. At least, not with empirical evidence. However, I need only remind you of my opponent's own definition, that God is "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." [1] It should be patently obvious that God, being the "ruler of the universe", is responsible for everything that happens within it, including the sending of souls to Hell. Furthermore, even if God DOESN'T send them to Hell directly, He was still the one who gave humans souls (yet no free will), and who created Hell to punish those souls, as explained by my opponent in the first round (the "no free will" bit in the second round). In conclusion, I find my opponent's proposition to be false. I thank you, 000ike, for engaging in this interesting debate with me, and the audience for listening to my ramblings. Source: [1] My opponent's third round
No one deserves to go to Hell

Thank you, 000ike, for your response. To begin, I would first like to refer to my opponent's two very strong premises: 1. Hell is only a justified punishment for a person who has free will. 2. No person has free will. The conclusion drawn from these two premises is, of course, that Hell is an unjustified punishment for any person. So, where do I fault in these statements? Ladies and gentlemen of the audience, I find no fault in either of these premises. I wholeheartedly agree with both of them and the conclusion that logically follows. "What?" I hear you gasp, "Have you receded from the debate? Admitted defeat?" I shall ease your doubts; this is no resignation. In fact, it is the exact opposite. Everything my opponent has said thus far points to only one logical conclusion: there IS one who is deserving of going to Hell. Allow me to explain. We have already established that the eternal torment of Hell is an unjust and immoral punishment for all mortal souls to be judged "deserving" of. Therefore, every time a soul is unjustly sent to Hell, it counts as another immoral act toward one being's ever-growing criminal record: the greatest criminal mastermind in history, the one responsible for the creation and continuation of the draconian cruelty and injustice that is Hell, the one who is ultimately accountable for every wrongful sending of souls to this Hell, God Himself! That's right: by deduction of my opponent's own logic, God is the only being in the universe who deserves His own punishment of Hell. He's the one who created human beings without free will; He's the one who created Hell to punish them for actions outside of their control; and He's the one ultimately responsible for sending them to Hell when it is within His power for them not to. And God, having free will, is excluded from the problems presented by my opponent's premises. Since God has free will, He SHOULD be held accountable for His undeniably immoral actions and Hell would be a just punishment for Him. Therefore, as there IS a being deserving of the punishment of Hell, my opponent's proposition is false.
Gay marriage.

My opponent tries to counter the definition of marriage with an analogy about woman's suffrage. Her line of reasoning goes that once woman could not vote and now they can. Therefore the definition of marriage should be changed. However my opponent again provides no warrant as to why the definition needs changing. Well I'm wrong, she did provide one reason. It was that not allowing homosexual couples to marry was discrimination. Of course it would only be discrimination if homosexual couples were beig denied the right to marry arbitrarily. I however showed that homosexuals are denied the right to marry for the valid reason that marriage entails a heterosexual union. So really, my opponent's logic is circular. My opponent's reasoning hinges on the definition of marriage already having been changed to allow homosexual unions, thus actually discriminating. My opponent has not upheld her burden of proof as her only argument was based on circular logic.
Gay marriage.

It is true that a marriage is said to be between a man and a woman, but is it not true that voting used to only be for white, land-owning men? Is it not true that it was legal to enslave colored people? My point is as society grows, we make changes. This is one change that has to be made for our country. My opponent asked why everyone should be able to marry who they love. To answer that, why should heterosexual couples get married? If your answer is that it is legal, then why should women vote? It is simply how the world works. Everyone deserves the same rights and I believe that that's what we believe as Americans. All people can be lawyers, all people can be teachers, all people can vote, therefore, all people should be able to get married.
Gay marriage.

Before we begin allow me to define marriage according to U.S. law. Marriage: a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife[1]My opponent makes a few assumptions in her case. They are that:Everyone should be able to marry who they love.Why is this? My opponent brings no warrant for this assertion.Why can I marry who I love, but someone who is gay can't?The answer is complicated, but the short answer would be that marraige is by definition a union between a man and a woman. Thus, a homosexual couple cannot possibly be married. Gay marriage is the same as yellow blue, a contradiction in terms.It is a human right to marry who you loveAgain, why is this? My opponent again brings no warrant to her assertion. I would write more but there is a 1,000 character limit. So, in conclusion, my opponent has not upheld her burden of proof and so I urge a Con vote.[1] http://www.law.cornell.edu...
"The sleep of reason produces monsters"

The interpretation of that phrase, for the purpose of this debate, is the liberal interpretation, not the postmodernistic one. In the liberal interpretation, reason is perceived as good for humankind, while its sleep, produces the monsters of fanatism, superstition and the inquisition that destroys human freedom. In this sense, I agree with Goya, the liberal Spanish Painter, that "the sleep of reason produces monsters".
"The sleep of reason produces monsters"

I proved that there is nothing like a "permanent sleep", that the term "sleep" implies the expectation of waking up at some point. " Since this isn't true (people die in their sleep for reasons other than sleep all the time) you can't have proved it, and it is irrelevant to the main point even if so as I have shown. " My opponent has been using a "straw man" fallacy, thus, failing to attack my position in favor of Goya's liberal position. He stated: "It does not matter what Goya intended to refer to, it matters what you actually referred to in the context you gave us, which is much broader. " The actual debate topic is a DIRECT quote from Goya. How can it not matter what Goya intended to refer to? " Because I am debating you, and you did not give that intent in the first round. The actual text, not the mind of the speaker, is relevant. " It is necessary to understand that most conservatives in modern democracies today, would be considered liberals, according to the standard of Goya's Spain. " I was not discussing modern conservatives. Perpetrated. Are you saying every conservative then did? Surely some had to, you know, be busy? " Goya's phrase does not imply that every single conservative was a monster. " Produces. You haven't addressed the fact that this does, indeed, constitute exactly such an implication-- to produce, with no further context given, requires a sufficient cause. The following has not been remotely addressed: The conservatives of that time wanted reason to cease permanently, not temporarily, contradicting your earlier position on "sleep. " Nor this: " Incidentally, sleep in the narrow sense, too, stops reason. Yet people who are sleeping and will wake up-- do not reason, are not fanatics nor superstitious, do not inquisit. " Despite your strict rejection of the broad position, and thus implied affirmation that the narrow definition is what you had to defend, you ignored this notable problem in the narrow definition Since that definition was the one least unfavorable to you, and you failed to defend against the problem in it, it is clear that under no interpretation of the resolution have you adequately defended it. And the burden of proof is on you.
"The sleep of reason produces monsters"

I proved that there is nothing like a "permanent sleep", that the term "sleep" implies the expectation of waking up at some point. In a trial to distract from this obvious mistake, he has came up with the idea of a "narrow" and a "broad" sense of "sleep", pretending that the former, is so "broad" that includes the concept of "death", not only as an euphemism, but as a definition. This lacks any sense of logic. .. well, maybe in a very "broad" sense of logic, which includes "illogic", it has a lot of it. My opponent has been using a "straw man" fallacy, thus, failing to attack my position in favor of Goya's liberal position. He stated: "It does not matter what Goya intended to refer to, it matters what you actually referred to in the context you gave us, which is much broader. " The actual debate topic is a DIRECT quote from Goya. How can it not matter what Goya intended to refer to? Is my opponent used to the fallacy of quoting out of context? In the vary last lines of his previous intervention, my opponent wrote: "Furthermore, are you saying that every conservative perpetrated these crimes? In order to say it "produces," you are strictly speaking identifying something as a sufficient cause, which requires that every last one of them personally become a 'monster. '" I applaud this last few lines, because at last we reach (in a indirect way, though), the position I am defending. It is necessary to understand that most conservatives in modern democracies today, would be considered liberals, according to the standard of Goya's Spain. It is not a coincidence that the liberal emerging power of the time, the USA, went into war agaist Spain: "By 1897-98 American public opinion grew more angry at reports of Spanish atrocities, and, after the mysterious sinking of the battleship Maine in Havana harbor, Democrats and farmers especially pushed the government headed by President William McKinley, a Republican, into a war McKinley wished to avoid. Compromise proved impossible; Spain declared war on April 23, 1898; the U. S. Congress on April 25 declared the official opening as April 21. " Goya's phrase does not imply that every single conservative was a monster. But it is clear that reason was on the side of liberals and the liberal republics of that time, and liberals had to act with energy to stop the atrocities commited on behalf of the Pope and the Crown. This is the real position stated since the beginning by quoting Goya. I challenge my opponent to leave his straw man argument and attack this position.
"The sleep of reason produces monsters"

" My opponent stated: "When you die, your reason sleeps-- permanently." There is a problem with this argument. I suppose that by "you" my opponent means an individual. Then, he is stating: when an individual dies, his reason sleeps permanently. The definition of "sleep" implies that it is a periodic state. (1) Sleep is identified with death only as an euphemism, but not as a definition. When something "sleeps forever", when there is no reasonable hope for it to awake, it means it is no sleeping, but dead. So, when an idividual dies, reason dies with him, but not sleeps. Is my opponent expecting reason to wake up in a decayed corpse? If not, he is accepting that reason dies with the individual's death, not sleeps" Sir, you identified the relevant variable as "Reason is good" in why the sleep of reason produces monsters. This means that its absence-- not its cease-- is what is relevant, and means the broad definition of sleep is quite fine. Incidentally, sleep in the narrow sense, too, stops reason. Yet people who are sleeping and will wake up-- do not reason, are not fanatics nor superstitious, do not inquisit. So the attempt to narrow the definition (Which you incidentally failed to provide in the first round, and since reason is not itself a body it does not itself sleep in the narrow definition anyway, making the attempt to narrow the resoution cause incoherency), does not get you anywhere even if viable. "In this context it is clear that Goya is referring to the fight between two positions: the one of reason, represented by liberals, and the one of the "sleep" of reason, represented by conservatives and the Spanish Inquisition." The conservatives of that time wanted reason to cease permanently, not temporarily, contradicting your earlier position on "sleep." It does not matter what Goya intended to refer to, it matters what you actually referred to in the context you gave us, which is much broader. Furthermore, are you saying that every conservative perpetrated these crimes? In order to say it "produces," you are strictly speaking identifying something as a sufficient cause, which requires that every last one of them personally become a "monster."