BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
1 gapping should be federal law or at least a social norm.

My opponent asserts I have no proof of certain things. However these things are common knowledge. Splash back exists and has been intensely researched by science. It's apparently an important enough phenomenon to throw countless dollars at figuring out. http://www.nbcnews.com... Conversation at the urinal is also a fact as well. Here is a partial list of things said to me at a urinal; "You have a nice flow, your prostate must be really healthy" "You're pretty" "Hey buddy, do you have the time?" WTF is wrong with people? Shy bladder syndrome is another real phenomenon. http://m.betterhealth.vic.gov.au... This phenomenon can be helped immensely by making 1 gapping the federal law or at least a social norm. Con asks if police should be in the bathroom, and I say yes, but I'm arguing that at the very least 1 gapping should be social norm.
1 gapping should be federal law or at least a social norm.

Absolutely disturbing. I'm not sure how to troll this, so I'll take this seriously.My opponent makes very few arguments but important ones nevertheless. "Some people are gun shy and can't pee when other men are close by trying to make conversation with them. Also you have things such as extra splash back to consider. Pee always splashes back at the microscopic level and 1 gapping will help prevent some of that splash back from hitting others." He says. However, no research, no backup, NOTHING shows this at all. Nothing even suggests other men are going to try to make conversation. Peeing only takes like 10 seconds at maximum anyways. That microscopic level is so less it won't hit the other people anyways. As for federal law, well it's far too difficult to do. What you gonna do--put a police in the bathroom? You'll have to try harder, Wylted. This is the least effort I've seen you use on a debate, EVER.
1 gapping should be federal law or at least a social norm.

Definition 1 Gap- A common courtesy that should be mandate by law. It means to leave a gap of one space. Examples: Please click on links to see photos http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Here are examples of people not one gapping. http://www.debate.org... http://www.debate.org... Why? It's ignorant to stand beside somebody at a urinal when they're trying to pee. Just 1 gap it an move a urinal space over. It's okay not to 1 gap in crowded bathrooms, but just be respectful and do it in empty bathrooms. Some people are gun shy and can't pee when other men are close by trying to make conversation with them. Also you have things such as extra splash back to consider. Pee always splashes back at the microscopic level and 1 gapping will help prevent some of that splash back from hitting others.
1 gapping should be federal law or at least a social norm.

I don't know what 1 gapping is but would like to suicide in yet another debate, this time honorably against the mighty Wylted.I may lose but I intend to troll the heck out of this debate.Guesses of what "one gap" is:One gap is this:http://sports.stackexchange.com... One gap is this: One gap is this: One gap is this: One gap is this: One gap is this: One gap is this: One gap is this: s://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com...; alt="" width="694" height="398" /> One gap is this: One gaps is this: One gaps is this: http://d20uo2axdbh83k.cloudfront.net...; alt="" />Tell me if I do get it right, okay Wylted?
Starlight Glimer (from MLP) is springtrap (from FNaF3)

In your YouTube video, Springtrap is shown in a different clip and room than Starlight Glimmer. Starlight "Glimer" on the other hand, is nowhere to be found in the video. A YouTube source is often unreliable considering they can be secondary sources or formes by a third-party group. FNAF was created by Scott Cawthon. MLP was created by Hasbro. This video was created by gss star. gss star could have easily edited Springtrap into the video clip. I have no idea why Springtrap would be in a totally different room attacking a totally different person within the blink of the eye. Not to mention that MLP uses drawn animation, while FNAF uses 3D animation. Right off the bat, my opponent has come up with an unreliable source and no sort of argument.
Starlight Glimer (from MLP) is springtrap (from FNaF3)

My opponent has come up with an incredibly weak case, admits this is a prank debate, and forfeits the 4th round. Since Pro has went from making a case to openly stating that this was a prank, this means that Pro has flat-out equivocated. Forfeiting a round only adds insult to injury. I have automatically won this debate.
Starlight Glimer (from MLP) is springtrap (from FNaF3)

Of course it is; I would find it hard to believe that you think this is true. What do you mean by "lol you belive this?" No I do not believe this, I negate it. It's called common sense. Since you have failed to properly fulfill your BoP, and have basically forfeited by stating that this is a prank debate, then that means that I win the debate.
Starlight Glimer (from MLP) is springtrap (from FNaF3)

To sound like something isn't to exactly matcg a sound let alone be something. Question: If I can make a sound like a California Quail, (it's true) can I truly be a California Quail? No I cannot. Different color and design properties distinguish Springtrap from Starlight Glimmer. You haven't proven that they are the same being, only that they sound similar. To be Springtrap, you have to have all of the same properties as Springtrap. Your topic states that they are the same being, you cannot change your claim; that is equivocating. Rebuttal- Springtrap is the suit itself, not the source of the sound. The Purple Guy, who possesses the suit, breathes when he jump scares you.
Resolved: Disney World should continue to have "gay days."

Marketing: Just because there is no law doesn't mean you should do it like trying to get high off nutmeg its not against the law but still shouldn't be done. My opponent here states that because homosexuality has grown in acceptance that Disney couldn't be hurt by allowing gay days again this is false for the simple fact that the gay community can't reproduce so the only way they can have children is to adopt which is long and difficult many times meaning most people with kids ( most people going to the park. ) Would be heterosexuals who could be against homosexuality and send Disney's profits down the drain. Once again I state the law doesn't require it but they still should out of a show of equality if gays are allowed in for a reduced price it is unequal and that is considered segregation which is unconstitutional so arguably it would be against the law for them to have gay days. Now here I state that people shouldn't have to miss out on a amazing time at Disney one of the biggest most famous theme parks in the world and even if homosexuality is becoming more accepted there are still those who disagree and shouldn't be made to feel uncomfortable. Equality: This is just one of the many attacks against Christians Disney has made . http://www.christianpost.com... Narrow mindedness: My opponent states I have used no evidence I beg to differ also I am not forcing anyone to believe anything simply defending my belief that homosexuality already has enough things like the gay pride parades and gayest city in the US contest and other media grabbing things they don't need to add a children's theme park to the list my opponent here started this debate saying Disney should give homosexuals these gay days simply because my opponent is pro homosexuality and wants to push this onto the minds of the youth Narrow minded? Widely accepted: The Christians have the same problem same thing with people who have drunk or unsuccessful parents but everyone sees Christians as accepted and the reason gay marriage stays against the law in many states is because many people see marriage as a sacred thing between a man and wife but besides that most people are fine with gays being gay just because they don't want the spoiling one of the last sacred things on earth doesn't mean they are oppressed.
Resolved: Disney World should continue to have "gay days."

Marketing: One of the beauties of marketing is that the consumer has a good say over what happens where they are or aren't consuming though the law does not force Disney to respect morals the consumer can by sending them bankrupt so on a marketing interest they will want to stop gay days. Equality: If Disney is trying to spread equality than why did they refuse Christian groups entrance to the park as a church trying to enjoy the day. Narrow-mindness: My opponent tries to state that I am narrow minded and all the other people who don't want their young children exposed to homosexuality are narrow minded but what is really narrow minded is this person fighting so hard to make everyone believe their point of view and refusing to accept the morals of the average person believing those morals should be tossed aside so they will believe what my opponent does I find this narrow minded and as far as gays killing themselves homosexuality has become widely accepted in America you can hardly say you disagree with homosexuality now without being labeled as ignorant and dumb for that if a homosexuals. Coming like any other they aren't just coming in and leaving they are getting in for less money celebrating their sexuality coming out if a strait couple left the park going I'm so glad I'm strait its great to be strait people supporting the gays would be appalled.
Resolved: Disney World should continue to have "gay days."

1. But why should they have to also Disney is one of if not the biggest amusement park in the world plus Universal Studios is not so much turned to younger kids. Also Disney sends it's advertising at the youth advertising its park to young children if they want to make another park where they aim their advertising at homosexuals then they can do that. Even though they are an independent company they have to respect the wishes and morals of the customers and joy seekers coming to their park. Now for gays being an equal part of society many people don't believe they should and the law protect peoples rights to feel that way and its wrong for Disney to try and pressure people into supporting what they believe in the manner that aims at their children and as far as me being narrow minded I find it very ignorant of you to say that simply because I believe homosexuality is immoral does not make me narrow minded I have taken a good look at homosexuality and one reason I'm against it is because it doesn't add to society they can't reproduce which is not narrow minded at all and it is not just ignorant but very foolish of you to say my way of thinking and my beliefs do nothing but cause hate crimes that's like me saying if it weren't for weaklings like you we wouldn't have the curse of homosexuality but I would not say something like that for I have a decent amount of respect for my opponent even if they have a different view. Now to the topic of the children being allowed to see the natural world well the natural war, violence, starvation, genocide, and disease all of this children do not need to be exposed to and also many people believe homosexuality is not natural for reasons like they don't reproduce and it is not immoral for parents to shield their children from that until they are old enough to correctly understand it and make their own decision on the topic so its not immoral but it is illegal for someone like you to push this idea so ferociously on people. To add to that it is a parents job to raise their children with these ideals and to make them a productive member of society not the job of a company like Disney and if a parent decides that they want to teach their children about racism and Nazism then that's their choice and in the end it will be the child's choice to make up their mind on the topic without a major corporation with a ton of money pressing it on the impressionable minds of the youth. My opponent tries to state that these are the same as homosexuality but as I have stated it is the parents job to raise them and teach them these things not a theme parks if a parent decides they want to teach their children for pro or con on homosexuality it would be the same if Disney had black days or Jew days it would be completely inappropriate. 2. The gays are always welcome at Disney I have never heard of Disney not allowing someone into their park for being gay so why can't the gays just go there like everyone else do they want equality or dominance?
Resolved: Disney World should continue to have "gay days."

Point 1: Well, for one thing, although I don't support this action whatsoever all in the sake of preventing children from understanding homosexuality in totality in order to attain a full understanding of it, to be honest, parents can go to another amusement park if they wish. I heard Universal Studios is pretty cool as well in the same region, and I'm not aware of any gay days that they have in support of the LGBT community. At the end of the day, Disney World is an independent corporation, and to some relative extent, they should be allowed to make its own decisions in what they support and not support, so if parents don't feel comfortable with exposing children to homosexuality, they can easily go to another park. The more important point, however, in the question for the warrant as to why homosexuality is wrong. My main concern in my argument is the acknowledgment that homosexuals should be respected as people, and gay days in Disney world helps emphasize at the very least an image of tolerance in their community that benefits their welfare. My main reason for the acceptance of homosexuality is because of the lack of reason not to considering that science has helped diminish pretty much most of the general ideas against homosexuality, and while religion provides its own reason for not accepting homosexuality, it has no warrant whatosever. To deny learning about something just because you have a personal proclivity toward the subject in question is pretty much just the very narrow-mindedness that causes problems in the community with regard to hate crimes and LGBT discrimination. Looking from the perspective of the child, at some level, children should be able to learn about the natural world and understand it, and it is immoral for parents to deny access to that learning simply because they have a moral inclination against it, if not at the very least impractical because the child should understand the world in order to be able to fucntion in it, which is what the parents are preventing from happening. Furthermore, my opponent seems to imply the idea that children should attain the ideals of their parents including their moral proclivities, but on this I ask the following: what if the parent were trying to teach the child ideals of Nazism or racism? Why is this any different from teaching a child that homosexuality is wrong? They both result in discrimination and negative effects to minorities, after all. If my opponent implies this, then it implies that teaching children this would be good as well. Point 2: Furthermore, my opponent doesn't understand gay days. Disney is not teaching children anything. All it's doing is that it's having a day where gay people are invited to come celebrate differences in sexual orientation at the park, not that the park is teaching kids anything related to homosexuality.
Resolved: Disney World should continue to have "gay days."

1. If people want their kids to be accepting to gays than that's up to the parents and some parents don't want their children to accept homosexuality as a ok thing my opponents first argument is trying to state homosexuality is ok which billions of people me included don't believe so and wouldn't want our children around it. my opponent has used one very bios site for his evidence on why homosexuality is good for kids which I must say is sick no on to my point 2. Acceptance or non acceptance of homosexuality is a personal moral thing that a children's theme park should have nothing to do with homosexuality is an adult topic not something for Mickey Mouse and Goofy to explain to your kids.
Resolved: Disney World should continue to have "gay days."

The gay days in question are a celebration of homosexuals and diversity of sexuality taking place within the park. Other than this, I have no more definitions for the understanding of the debate at hand. I explain my single contention for this round:Contention : Gay days promote a guiding principle that betters the status of acceptance and tolerance in the community. The entire point of the Gay Days at Disney World is to promote the image of tolerance for the homosexual community, which is what is needed in order to create a better condition for homosexuals even at the local level if not that Disney's figurehead is so large that the entire American community can be influenced by this movement. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention explain, intolerance is greatly negative for the health of the gay community: "Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities. Homophobia, stigma and discrimination can: Limit MSM's ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM Affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance Contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts Affect MSM's ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk Make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health The effects of homophobia, stigma and discrimination can be especially hard on adolescents and young adults. Young MSM and other sexual minorities are at increased risk of being bullied in school. They are also at risk of being rejected by their families and, as a result, are at increased risk of homelessness. A study published in 2009 compared gay, lesbian, and bisexual young adults who experienced strong rejection from their families with their peers who had more supportive families. The researchers found that those who experienced stronger rejection were: 8.4 times more likely to have tried to commit suicide 5.9 times more likely to report high levels of depression 3.4 times more likely to use illegal drugs 3.4 times more likely to have risky sex The very same report explains that social support is the key toward reducing the problems of homophobia in the country and hence reduce the problems that result from this. "Stigma and Discrimination. " Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 03 Mar. 2011. Web. 22 Apr. 2012. <. http://www.cdc.gov...;.
This Debate is Pointless.

pointless-devoid of meaning debate-dispute between opposing parties There is no dispute going on, therefore the debate is devoid of meaning. Even if he gets voting rights, the debate itself is pointless because there is no debate. What does have a point is that Juggle gives him rights he debated, pointlessly. That's a result of the debate, not the debate itself. Since he is not debating, then the debate has no meaning!
Friends with benefits is not ok

========== Definitions ========== [Word/Phrase - Friends with Benefits] [Source - . http://en.wikipedia.org...] "The physical and emotional relationship between two people who may have a sexual relationship or a near-sexual relationship without necessarily demanding or expecting a more formal romantic relationship as a goal. " [Word/Phrase - Ok] In context of this debate, "ok" or "okay" means "morally acceptable", or anything of that guideline. If my opponent meant something else less common, then the onus was on him to first define the terms - not for me to choose the most probable definitions. Now onto the arguments: ========== Sex is "okay" ========== Basically, friends with benefits (known as a casual relationship) revolves around sex. Emotional attachment is avoided, and instead the main line of relation the partners of a casual relationship have is sex. Sex is the act being scrutinized. With that said, sex that is A. involving adults and B. consenting, is fine. Under these two circumstances, no type of sex is immoral or reprehensible. Whether it be a calm missionary, or a rough bondage style - it doesn't matter. Whether it be two heterosexuals of the opposite gender in a marriage, or two transgenders going at it - it doesn't matter. Sex is in itself clean. Therefore, two people who have casual sex with each other is just as fine. As I said before, it's just sex. ========== Conclusion ========== I await the rebuttals!
Islam is violent

Islam isn't violent, rather it describes it's self defence because of the persecutions Muhammad and his followers has faced for months and forced to fight 1000 fully armed of THEIR OWN RELATIVES. Their own relatives persecuted the Muslims so much that they moved to Abbyssinia/Ethiopia. Then they migrated to Madina and were helped out by the Ansaar (Helpers). About "Torturing" the Jews and all that. The Jews broke a treaty/deal twice and attempted to kill the prophet and were punished after their 2nd chance. On the first chance they were forgiven and was given another treaty. The Jews took advantage of this and broke the treaty again, then captured and exiled. Anyone who attempts to kill a leader should be punished, right? No? Let's all kill Trump because we don't agree with him, nah that's not the way. The Jews got what was coming to them. About gays, yes gays are disliked but are not ordered to be punished. Women? Have you read Surah Nisa? Also women and men are equally punished for the same crime they did. Women are not oppressed, women were given respect and were taken away from being treated like dogs from the Quraish tribe. If women are so oppressed? Why do more women go to Islam than men? I don't think a women would like to be a slave or a doormat.
Islam is violent

I, myself, am a pro-violence kind of guy and I really admire Islam. It hates women, gays, Jews and infidels. Judaism and Christianity are also like that but unfortunately we aren't violent because of it. Islamic scripture is extremely violent. Haven't you ever read the Qur'an con? It is the word of the Muslim god. Qur'an (8:12) has their god giving his angels the command to behead infidels. Verse 9:29 says Muslims must fight the non-believers until we willingly pay the jizya, which is a tax for infidels. If we fail to pay the tax, we must either convert to Islam or we will be killed. Oh, another great non-violent fact about Islam is that if you leave it, the punishment is death. This rule was put in place by Muhammad (pbuh) himself.