BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage

My opponent claims that I'm not accepting that marriage is not natural, which he believes it is not. However, my opponent never took the time to read the definition of natural that I provided. My opponent essentially turned this debate into a semantics argument. However, there are parts of their argument which need to be dealt with:My opponent stated that ideas are always changing, and ironically after criticizing me for jumping on a bandwagon, they do so themselves. "[I]f enough people believe and accept it as the truth, it becomes the truth. " They even go as far as saying that 2 + 2 can equal 5, if there's enough people providing evidence of that conclusion. To which I respond, no. No matter what people think, there are objective truths. My opponent said that I made an appeal to the masses in my use of universal tradition, but I didn't make the appeal because it is (or was) popular, but because it follows what is objectively good. Matrimony of man and woman is inherently right as it provides for the common good of child-rearing, creates a relationship which is best suited for humanity's biological imperatives, and ultimately resorts in the continued survival of the human species. If my opponent has the gall to say that material pleasure overrides our obligation to provide for our common good, then I hope you can see the recognition of an objective morality in you. Opening marriage to homosexuals will only further degenerate the institution of marriage into a partnership for pleasure rather than procreation. I will be reserving Round 5 for rebuttals and a concluding statement, as I will be the last to go.
Gay Marriage

My opponent is still not accepting that marriage is NOT natural. WE invented the idea of marriage, WE invented the boundaries, WE are responsible for them. Natural, by definition, has a completely opposite meaning to the points I have just made. May I add that, as someone said in the comments, the argument " Almost a universal tradition" is ad populum and argumentum ad antiquitatum? How can we have the foundations of something practised today, based on ideas which where made by a group of people millennia ago. NATURE may have created the biological boundaries, but WE were the ones which built marriage around it; having the ability to reason better than a sparrow doesn't make it any more/less natural. Ideas are constantly changing, and if enough people believe and accept it as the truth, it becomes the truth. Some people can argue that the earth is flat, and they accept it as flat, simply because some other people accept it. Even 2+2 could equal 5 if you can back it up with reliable evidence; whether YOU believe it is irrelevant.
Gay Marriage

My opponent has asked the following, "How many times have you seen a sparrow getting married to a sparrow[?] In reality, almost all animals have no relationship at all with their mates..." To which I respond with the following:1. Marriage was built around biological realities, and humans have the ability to reasonThe basic thing we need to understand is that people are bound by laws of nature like all life. Thus, we reproduce with the opposite sex to create offspring in order to continue our species' survival. However, we have a higher conscience and higher thinking. Sparrows don't get married because they can't even begin to comprehend marriage (or even permanent partnerships), we humans have capabilities to reason as nature bestowed that gift upon us. We have an institution of marriage because our ancestors understood that it would be the most beneficial to our species to build an institution in accordance with natural law, and to create a relationship in which child-bearing was a given for the continuation of the species. All animals in the kingdom mate and produce children, we built an institution that was in line with the natural realities surrounding us.2. Popularity does not equate to it being true/right/etc., and the statement is vague at bestThe statement in the UDHD is fairly vague, and it doesn't say there isn't a limitation based on sexual orientation. If there's some background as to the intent behind writing that statement, then I will reconsider my previous statement. However, there's another caveat: my opponent makes an appeal to popularity. Simply because a majority of the world accepts it as true does not mean that it is true. The notion that marriage is a right simply because the majority of nations believe so is incorrect, rights do not trump what is right, and there are areas democracy should have no control over. Two plus two does not equal five no matter what people think, it's objectively wrong.
Gay Marriage

Explain to me how marriage as a concept, is natural. How many times have you seen a sparrow getting married to a sparrow. In reality, almost all animals have no relationship at all with their mates, which makes the "natural" (existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind.) part of marriage irrelevant. The only thing which has created marriage as well as its boundaries are human beings. According to the Universal deceleration of human rights (UDHD), "(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." Meaning that a man and a man, woman and a woman, and woman with man can all be married (The UDHD is widely accepted by almost every country).
Gay Marriage

My opponent asked the following, "[W]ho was the figure whom decided that marriage was between two heterosexual people?" Stating afterward that "[m]arriage is a concept which is made by humans, ergo unnatural..." and that these traditions are outdated by modern standards. I have to disagree with the idea that marriage is unnatural and that the protected matrimony of man and woman is outdated, and here's why:1. Matrimony of man and woman was created organically due to terrestrial realitiesThe figure who decided marriage was between man and woman isn't actually a who, it's an it: nature. Nature gave unto all animal life the drive for sexual attraction to the opposite sex for the continued survival of species, and human society epitomized this. That is, that they included this biological imperative into their society. It's the extension of a natural reality into social custom, that rose organically from the realities of nature that surrounded them. It's not unnatural, it's the definition of natural,[1] and since nature is omnipotent and immortal it fully applies to today's society.2. Marriage is not a universal right since marriage is not a matter of civil law but a matter of natural lawLet's refute the main point: Marriage is not a human right. The US Constitution, and many other social contracts, protect freedom of association. However, civil law and the institution of marriage are two different entities. Marriage, as an institution providing for the bond of man and woman, is defined as such due to natural law. As stated before, "[Marriage is] the extension of a natural reality into social custom." It's not discriminatory to not allow homosexuals to be married because the institution of marriage has existed for thousands of years while gay marriage is an idea that has only become popular in recent decades. Homosexuals have no right to redefine marriage for their own purposes, no one has that right.[1] Merriam-Webster - being in accordance with or determined by nature
Gay Marriage

And who was the figure whom decided that marriage was between two heterosexual people? As with religion, things which were made millennia ago no longer apply to today's modern society. Whilst I agree that homosexuality as an orientation is somewhat rare, it doesn't justify calling homosexuality unnatural. Marriage is a concept which is made by humans, ergo unnatural, whether you choose to believe or not is irrelevant. My main point is, however, that not allowing gay marriage is blatant and obvious discrimination against a group of people, and is no different to not allowing mixed-race couples to be wed.
Banning the death penelty.

so what your saying is if a parent tells his child to not smoke, and then chooses to set a good example to his child and back up his message through his own actions by not smoking, but then the child even though has had positve verbal instruction to not smoke and positive visual example of never seeing his father smoke chooses to light up a cigarette anyway that now the father should forget everything that he has tried to teach his child and start smoking because all hope is now lost and their is no saving his child. Is that like what your saying? We should instead be a father who has a cigarette in his mouth and telling his kid not to smoke. Do you think that will be more effective. "Taking a person's life is not wrong; murder is. " (lvisman96) Are you serious? Does that realy make sense to you? Your all about killing people and more laws lvisman. I see you believe in abortion too. You definitly believe in the quick fix but you must relize that your sollutions are just that quick fixes and they don't realy solve the problem. You have to ask yourself what is the RIGHT sollution not the easiest sollution.
Banning the death penelty.

For people to have an appreciation for 'being above them' they wouldn't have committed murder in the first place. They know (unless they are mentally incompetent for which they are then not held accountable)that the world as a whole does not advocate murder by the actions and laws of the citizenry. So the idea of 'setting an example' is lost on them as they don't respect it and commit murder anyway. Taking a person's life is not wrong; murder is. I subscribe to the 'eye for an eye', 'tooth for a tooth' mentality. It was good enough to be included in the original guide (The Old Testament) for most of the world's non-secular community, it's good enough for me. Criminals commit murder outside the law, community terminates life within the law. Probably most important is that with death there is no possibility of parole, escape, sentence overturning on technicalities, etc. Current studies that seem to show that the death penalty is not a deterrent are flawed as they are done within the confines of the US's system, which is rife with flaws. Death penalty will only mean something to criminals if it is swift. The current US system can have prisoners on death row for years, if not decades, before final sentence is carried out. For a more accurate picture, take a look at Saudi law, or other such country where sentencing and execution are swift. Their murder rates are very low. People need to be accountable for their actions, and if their actions are to murder other people, they should be judged by the same measure that they used with their victims.
Banning the death penelty.

The point is people don't understand consequences unless they're shown them. Give the person a taste of their own medicine. Wanna smoke ? Let's see how you really like it. Kill someone ? We kill you. Below is a summation to this point based upon various arguments. Biological Argument: In America, people are free to believe in what they want. Some people believe that humans are nothing more than organisms that live, then die. From that perspective, a person that has become a danger to society is eliminated, there is no morality about it. Morality Argument : Nowhere are morals preached more than in a religious context. Given the number of religions in existence, it's impossible to scrutinize all for deathpenalty issues so I will only concentrate on the Old Testament, the basis for most of the world's religions from Jews and Christians to Muslims. And from Adam & Eve on, the punishment for a crime of grave proportions has been death. Leviticus 24:20 states "fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth. As he has injured the other, so he is to be injured." (Incidentally, the commandment that is commonly interpreted to say "Thou shalt not kill" is in actuality closer in translation to "Thou shalt not murder"). Legal Argument: As we have seen from the definition of murder, there are terminating life situations that are lawful. Our Constitution was written to protect our citizen's rights, including ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. The U.S. Supreme court has deemed the death-penalty not in conflict with that document or it's tenets. Sociology Argument: Your sympathy argument is misguided. Murderers deserve punishment not sympathy. Where is the sympathy for the relatives of a murder victim when the criminal is walking around free ? As far as mitigating circumstances (life environment, etc.) those all come out at trial. And they are still found guilty and deserving of the death penalty. As far as your hypothetical scenario about people growing up in middle class America being productive in society-murderers can be rich or poor. 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for a new homicide.SOURCE: US Department of Justice. If we had executed those 1.2% that were released we wouldn't have new orphans /widows by their hand. Thinking "they're just like me" is misguided.They are not.Like the nature lover who gets mauled by a bear because they had a teddybear once. The death penalty is right when used lawfully.
Banning the death penelty.

So lvisman what would you do for the person who has killed someone would you have the criminal kill three packs of people, and see if he still likes it? People don't just do things they do it for a reason. There is a reason a child smokes a cigarette and there is a reason why a person kills someone. The question is why. You have to find out why and until you find out why you have little hope of ever solving the problem. Though it may seem easier to just take lvismans route and just kill everyone who makes a mistake. Murder is a horrible thing. The experience of losing a loved one because they were murdered is unimaginable, which I fully understand. But one horrible act does not justify another. I believe strongly in two wrongs do not make a right. Another point that needs to be addressed is maybe the person who has committed a crime, even murder deserves some sympathy. Committing a crime as serious as murder deserves serious punishment, no debate is needed. No matter what circumstance a peron was brought up in, a person who commits a crime of murder has let their environment and any other problems get the best of them. But the environment from which a person grows up in is the reason I say criminals should deserve some amount of sympathy. I want to ask you lvisman, if a person who grows up with in a bad, unsafe environment, with bad schools, little money, uneducated parents, and winds up killing someone during a bank robbery. Do you think if you took that same person from a baby and had that baby grow up in a completely different family. A family who was upper middle class, they lived in a large nice house, in a nice clean neiborhood and the child was sent to a good, safe school. Would that person who in reality robbed a bank and killed someone still commit some other horrible crime or would that person more then likely have a completely different life and wind up being a valued citizen in our country instead of a now criminal being sentenced to death? I go to school in Camden NJ and I can't believe some of the houses people live in. I don't want to roll down my windows when I drive though that city. It is a real shame how alot of people have to grow up and what I am trying to accomplish through this debate is for people to think more before they aggree give up on a person and throw them out with the trash. You can't just give up on people becuase one day someone might give up on you.
Banning the death penelty.

Hi Italia. I think you'll agree that smoking is different than murder. Even so, using your example, I don't think a father should smoke to 'spite' the kid. What they should do, and the analogy is perfect for this debate, is give the kid a taste of his own medicine (I am assuming the child is of legal age, etc). I would have the kid smoke 3 packs in a row and see if he still likes it. That worked in the old days. I am not about 'quick fixes' as you put it. I do believe that the current system is not efficient and should be made such. Years and decades of sitting on death row is not much better than a life sentence...the 'death' sentence should be just that-death. Found guilty, goodbye. Why must our society's resources be wasted on the non-deserving. Those that have forsaken their humanity ? Room, board, cable, etc. There are much more deserving people that the money pumped into the prison system could help. To say nothing of the victim's family. A society where the punishment fits the crime. Death and murder are not the same. Every being in the animal kingdom lives by killing (even vegetarians-the exception being certain types of bacteria that live on sulphur salts). Murder is unlawful killing. What about war ? Why isn't that classified as 'murder' ? According to dictionary.com, murder is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice." Being 'unlawful' infers that there is a 'lawful killing of one human by another'--such as state-sanctioned execution. On the subject of abortion (which I'd love to debate), that deserves some clarification...as it is listed on debate.org, I believe it is asking abortion "RIGHTS". Personally, for myself and my wife, I believe that it is wrong and we would not take that route. However, until the legal community or scientific community comes right out and says that a glob of cells has the same rights as a human being, then I don't believe that I should impose my BELIEFS on someone else. BELIEFS cannot be proven to be the correct answer. And in America, people are entitled to their own BELIEFS. See ? Sometimes things are not as they seem. Concurrently, sometimes the easiest solution IS the right solution.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Proves the Existence of the Christian God

I'm just going to simply extend all arguments, and here's why. My opponent does a great job of defending the three basic steps in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. However, I never questioned the merit of the first three steps. I questioned the idea that the cause of the universe is a Creator God. I also brought up another potential cause of the beginning of the universe, which is the Big Bang Theory. My opponent briefly talks about the idea that the cause of the universe is a Creator God, but doesn't debunk other ideas such as the Big Bang Theory.Furthermore, the resolution of the debate is "The Kalam Cosmological Argument Proves the Existence of the Christian God". My opponent has only attempted to prove the existence of A GOD. He must prove the existence of the Christian God using the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Now, let's revisit a point that I mad in the last round."a. My opponent must prove the Christian God’s existence with the Kalam Cosmological Argument. b. The Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn’t prove, nor does it even talk about, the existence of the Christian God. c. Therefore, my opponent can’t meet his burden of proof with the Kalam Cosmological Argument."So, I have met my objective that states that the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't in any way fully prove the existence of the Christian God. Since my opponent must use this argument to prove the existence of the Christian God, he can't possibly meet his burden of proof. It's as simple as this; I have met my objective and my opponent cannot meet his. I appreciate the merit of my opponent's argument, as he did a good job of defending the Kalam Cosmological Argument. However, he has not met his objective.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Proves the Existence of the Christian God

Hello, welcome to my debate.So, let’s restate the resolution. The resolution is as follows: “The Kalam Cosmological Argument Proves the Existence of the Christian God”. Since I am con, I must coherently show how the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn’t prove the existence of the Christian God beyond a shadow of a doubt.Before I get into any of my arguments, I will provide a basic summary of the Kalam Cosmological Argument. The following is the basic Kalam Cosmological Argument.The Kalam Cosmological Argument attempts to show that there is a God out there that created the universe and that the universe had a beginning that was started by a God. Here is the basic outline of the Kalam Cosmological Argument.1. Everything that exists/began to exist has a cause.2. The universe exists.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.This cause is often times thought of to be a creator God.Now that I have given the basic premise of what the Kalam Cosmological Argument is, I would like to begin my argument.Argument #1: Flaws in the ArgumentThe Kalam Cosmological Argument does go as far as to logically show that the universe had a cause with the three steps. However, the argument becomes flawed after that. This argument makes the automatic assumption that the cause of the universe’s existence is a creator God. However, this is not necessarily the case. In order to establish that the cause of the universe is a creator God, the argument must go further than it already does. It doesn’t show why the idea of a creator God is the cause of the universe or why it is a more rational idea than other explanations of the universe’s beginning, such as the Big Bang Theory. Hence, the Kalam Cosmological Argument fails to provide the proof of showing that a creator God exists.Argument #2: No Connection to Christian GodLet’s reiterate that my opponent’s goal is to prove the existence of the Christian God specifically with the Kalam Cosmological Argument and nothing else. The Kalam Cosmological Argument only attempts to prove the existence of just a creator God. I’ve already debunked the argument itself, but forget that for a moment. Remember that even if the Kalam Cosmological Argument showed the existence of a creator God, it doesn’t talk about the existence of the Christian God. So, let’s map this out.a. My opponent must prove the Christian God’s existence with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.b. The Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn’t prove, nor does it even talk about, the existence of the Christian God.c. Therefore, my opponent can’t meet his burden of proof with the Kalam Cosmological Argument.Conclusion: I have found a flaw in the Kalam Cosmological Argument. In addition, I have also made a point which cannot be refuted and shows that my opponent cannot win. I await my opponent’s next round argument.Resources:http://en.wikipedia.org...
The Kalam Cosmological Argument Proves the Existence of the Christian God

The resolution of the debate is "The Kalam Cosmological Argument Proves the Existence of the Christian God". Since I am con, I will argue that the Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn't necessarily prove the existence of the Christian God beyond a shadow of a doubt. My opponent, who will be pro, must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Kalam Cosmological Argument proves the existence of the Christian God. Here are the rules. 1. First round is acceptance only. 2. Second round is arguments only (no rebuttals). 3. Final three rounds are for any type of argument or rebuttal. 4. Burden of proof is only on pro, as he/she must prove their case beyond a doubt. 5. Any violation of these rules results in a loss of conduct point. I wish my future opponent luck.