BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
gay marriage

Hi, welcome to the site and thanks for the challenge.Contention 1: OverpopulationMy opponent states in her opening argument that the world is overpopulated, but that fact is false. Here's a fun fact of the day! If the entire world population had the same amount of living space as New York City then they would fit into Texas! (http://www.realclearscience.com...) See this means that we aren't overpopulated it just shows that us as humans are just really just spread out. In an article by Time we can see that the world's population is actually decreasing not increasing. (http://newsfeed.time.com...) Doesn't look like you believe me. Many nations that have high female financial independence look at Europe. Their childbirth rates are actually lower than the death rates! The US has actually reached it's lowest all time as the US birth rates are falling. US birth rates are down 8%, foreign births are down 14%, and Mexican birth rates are down by more than 23%! (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org...) So it looks like the Earth is not overpopulated.Contention 2: Homosexuals should not get married.First let me give you a Bible verse that is against the Bible. "'Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."-Leviticus 20:13 Now I state that homosexuals should not get married, because it is against many different religions and we can all agree that marriage is a religious Sacrament where that the church says it is between a man and a women. (http://www.americancatholic.org...) Now the US has the Separation of church and state, so my point is that the federal government should stay out of a religious affair as it has no right to intervene.
the golden rule n application is not clear

Clarity PRO has claimed that I stated the Golden Rule is sometimes not clear. This is untrue. Her quote from my words state that the “action” may not be clear, but the Rule itself is quite simple. As PRO never addressed my analogy, and I think I have thought of a better one, I will present it presently. The Golden Rule can be thought of as an incredibly simple mathematical equation; y=x, where y is what I would like to have done to me, and x is what I should do. Most of the time, y is equal to something simple like 2, ½, or 9.3. In these cases, there is no problem. However, in some cases, y is something a little more difficult to deal with, such as i, or π. In these cases, the formula is still as simple as ever (i=i or π= π), even thought the action itself may be difficult to determine. As I have argued from the first round, the Golden Rule is clear, treat others as you wish to be treated. If you don’t know how you wish to be treated, that is not the fault of the Golden Rule Some Random Middle Ground PRO has accused me of choosing “some random middle ground” in the hypothetical situation we were discussing, and also of not stating why my choice was best. First of all, this was a hypothetical situation, not real life. The ONLY information I had to work with was that within the situation PRO presented me with, therefore, answer was necessarily going to be simplistic as I was not actually dealing with real life events. However, contrary to PRO’s claim, I did explain my decision when I wrote, “My reasoning here is simple: Bob would want someone to intervene, so he should intervene. However, Bob would want his choices respected, so, once he has intervened, if John wants to continue, he should be allowed to do so. ” Finally, I never said it was the best course of action, I said it was the course of action dictated by the Golden Rule. Final Thoughts PRO began this debate with the claim, “the golden rule is not clear;” throughout the debate, she has argued not that the rule is unclear, but that the exact course of action dictated by the rule is unclear in some situations. As I have pointed out numerous times, these two things are not the same. To be very clear, the Golden Rule is exceedingly clear; treat others as you wish to be treated. If you don’t know how you wish to be treated, that isn’t the Rule’s fault.
the golden rule n application is not clear

"While I admit there are situations where the exact action is not clear" con seems to be admitting that sometime the golden rule is not clear. con says it is though more a part of the failure of the person to know who they want to be treated. even if this is the case, as my hypotehtical says.... it still can be a diffiicult road to go down because of so many conflicting inteests. and even if it's the case, the application should still be said to be unclear, given in application one must make the decisions that are hard to make, even i the rule itself at the abstract doesn't complicate nothing. alsso, on con's approach to the hypothetical, he just chose some random middle ground without saying why that was best. one person could say they think Bob should call the police, cause it's what's best for John. another might say given john views it as not debateabe, that he should be left alone. now, these i pose are different people withthe same ideals coming to different outcomes. but really, it could be said to be one person who chooses one outcome, but could have without much of any difference given his views, picked a diffeent outcome. con's pick of an outcome was pretty arbitrary afterall.
the golden rule n application is not clear

PRO seems to be overly complicating the issue. The application of the Golden Rule is clear. While I admit there are situations where the exact action is not clear, I liken it to aiming a weapon. The Golden Rule is how you aim, while the action is the ammunition. It is very clear that we treat people as we wish to be treated; this is like aiming a weapon with a laser sight, it is impossible to miss. The question as to exactly what that action is to be taken is akin to the particular type of ammunition chosen for the target. The fact that someone might themselves be conflicted is not a failure of the Golden Rule, but rather a failure of the individual to understand themselves and how they wish to be treated. Cocaine To address PRO’s example directly, it is clear that Bob should intervene in John’s drug use, but one he has said his piece, leave John alone. Bob’s feelings that cocaine use is not ok are irrelevant. My reasoning here is simple: Bob would want someone to intervene, so he should intervene. However, Bob would want his choices respected, so, once he has intervened, if John wants to continue, he should be allowed to do so. Closing Thoughts In my opinion, PRO is overly complicating the issue. While it may be difficult to figure out how you yourself would wish to be treated, the actual application of the Golden Rule is clear as crystal.
the golden rule n application is not clear

con first argues the golden rule is clear, but he is only referring in that instance that the rule is stated clearly. i agree with that. that's why i said 'in application' in the opening statement resolution, it's not clear. con does a lot of 'it's clear but what you do is ask how you would want to be treated'. it's self evident but doesn't really get into how to choose the right approach of various ones, such as the ones i listed above. maybe instead of disorganized mess of ideas as i gave in the opening post, i will give a hypothetical. for example. John is doing cocaine, and only dabbles in it and views it as nondebateably harmless in the bigger picture. Bob thinks any cocaine use is going too far, and is not debatable to say otherwise. Bob personally would want someone to invervene if he was doing cocaine. on the other hand, Bob also would want people to respect his wishes on things he sees as debateably okay or nondebateable. does Bob intervene, based on the fact that he'd want intervened with on cocaine use, especially given he personally sees it as undebateably not okay? or does he respect John's wishes given John must at least view cocaine use as at least debateably to nondebateably okay given Bob would want people to respect his wishes on debateable issues? reliance on the golden rule doesn't really direct how to approach it. it admittedly gives you food for thought and directs you in a laudable way in general, but how to respond isn't so clear cut.
the golden rule n application is not clear

PRO has claimed that the golden rule is not clear, and asks “what are the guiding principles that can determine how to act in accordance with it? ” I will argue that the golden rule is clear, a point I will demonstrate. For the purposes of this debate, we will use PRO’s rendering of the Golden Rule: “[D]o unto others as you'd have them do unto you” Simplicity The Golden Rule is very simple. It states that whenever we are going to act toward another person, we should act toward them how we would like ourselves to be acted towards if we were in that position. There are no guiding principles, that is all there is. If we are walking down the street, the Golden Rule says that we should not punch the man walking the other way, unless that is how we would have him treat us. Similarly, we should treat people well if we ourselves wish to be treated well. Complexity I’m not going to address PRO’s myriad of examples for the simple reason that I have already addressed them generally in the previous section. Also, the Golden Rule doesn’t apply to some of the scenarios outlined by PRO as they aren’t about human interaction. I just felt it would be helpful to illustrate the point with a two of PRO’s own examples. Fireworks If I was setting off fireworks too close to people, I would want to be warned so that I would not inadvertently injure someone. Even if the proximity to or quantity of people doesn’t make it a clear hazard, I would like it if I was made aware so that I could reassess the situation and ensure that I will not injure someone. As this is how I would like to be treated, I would warn the individual. Buying/Selling Cars If we were selling a car, we should disclose any problems with the car because if we were in the position of buying the car, that is what we would want the seller to do for us. Final Thoughts Just as both of the scenarios I outlined above are pretty simple, the overall application of the Golden Rule is simple, as I outlined early in my comments. I look forward to PRO’s thoughts on the matter.
the golden rule n application is not clear

do unto others as you'd have them do unto you the golden rule is not clear my thoughts are not very organized. maybe after a few debates they will be better. if it is clear, what are the guiding principles that can determine how to act in accordance with it? some intervention v deferrence hypotheticals: -someone is setting of fireworks close to the road, but it's debatable if it's too close. alternatively, someone is setting off fireworks with people around, but it's debateable if there's too many people around. alternatively, someone is staying too close to the fireworks debateably. some people say these situations are not debateable. so even if it's debateable is debateable, or at least debated. -someone looks at porn, which at least amongst Christians is usually considered wrong. -someone doesn't eat meat cause they think it's immoral. -someone cuts himself for kicks. -an adult male has man love with a seventeen year old male. greeks had man love with boys and men, and society accepted it. is a one year difference and the cultural phenomenons going on here going to change things? -what about those who: smoke cigarettes, marijuama, drink, does cocaine.... and then the varying degrees of usage. or those who eat arguably too much. in which cases does an outsider intervene, and in which cases does the outsider defer to the person? if it's debatable about how to approach the situation, then you have to formulate your own philsophy, which means it'd vary by the person, which ultimately means the rule isn't really that clear. many people would want themselves deferred to if they are doing something questionable. then they might want intervened against for extreme situations if they are seen as clearly wrong. but how do you know which is which, and what if another person would want to never be intervened against? you couldtake the philosophy that you personally might intervened against despite the fact that the other person doesn't want intervened against..... or you could take the philsophy of complete deferrence to the other's wishes, even though you'd want intervened against. so how is this rule clear if whether or not to act is purely up to the individual? and how is 'as they would have done unto you' clear, when you could base it on if the other person was you, or if you based on more on the fact that they aren't you? and sometimes it might be such that i would call it debateable, but another wouldn't. do you act based on your own perceptions of what's debateable, or seek some more objective source? plus there's objective and subjective things to consider. some people might view certain acts as okay, but society and pretty objectively, their acts are not okay. so when do we defer to their subjective reality, versus the objective nature of the situation? or, what about selling cars. some might say it's the other persons obligation to find any flaws and sell as is, but another might say a person whould be forthright with the information. do you just base it on your own desire or expectations if ou were in that situation?
This house supports abortion

Before I begin, I would like to talk about your first point (as I address your second point in my response). There is no point in spending too much time on this, as this point depends almost entirely on your second point, so i'll make it brief. Even though you showed no evidence for your statistics on parents giving their children away into abortion, i'll go with your point anyway. I believe that the birth parent should under no circumstances be able to put her rights above her child's, even if this means the parent has to go through things such as depression. I won't bother responding to the rest of this point, as I am pretty sure it is entirely based on who can win the second point (please correct me if I am wrong). You argued that the fetus is not a person. I don't agree with this, as I think the fetus is actually a human. While you use a very philosophical argument, I would like to use science, and then explain why your argument is not as credible. It is impossible to deny that human life begins at fertilization, according to modern science. This is acknowledged by the majority of experts in this field (1) (2). While I acknowledge the bias in both sources, it is worth seeing the scientific studies and evidence they point to. If you still disagree that human life begins at fertilization, please explain where is does begin. When the child leaves the mother, there is no evidence of a biological change occurring. You may think this is somewhat side tracking the debate, but I think it is very important. If you don't think human life exists at fertilization, please tell me where you think it begins and why. I would say the scientific argument always trumps the philosophical argument, as science relies on evidence, but to confirm my stance, I will point out a few inconsistencies in this philosophical argument. Apparently to have human life, you must have rationality and self consciousnesses. This is a very flawed analogy as it would mean people in comas are dead as well as people suffering from severe types of brain damage among many others. This is one of many reasons why I don't agree with Peter Singers theory. I completely agree with your conclusion. Abortion is one of the only issues I am not libertarian on. I do seek to take away the choice of murder from the mother. I also agree with your pre rebuttal, both parties do have to have consent, but sometimes the opportunity in the abortion industry does lure in doctors, who later regret their decisions. Although I dont have time to supply evidence to this claim, I can supply it next time, as I know many examples of this happening, but this consent argument is very strong, the only problem is, people on both parties often consent, but then regret their decision later. I also dont have time to talk about the industry, but I think that is somewhat irrelevant to this topic anyway. Sorry for the messy and short response, as I was under time constraints. I will look to answer questions and queries in a fuller manner next time. Thanks. (1) https://www.princeton.edu... (2) https://www.lifesitenews.com...
This house supports abortion

Hey, sounds interesting. Thanks for debating me, as I am not familiar with this format. Today I will most likely be presenting a fairly standard argument for why most reasonable pro-lifers disagree with abortion. While religion is important to me in this debate, I will leave it out as I know it is not a viable point for everyone. I am very interested in your second argument, and thus, will present the argument this is meant to rebut first. My first point will be about how it is not right, morally, to kill a fetus at any stage of fetal development. I will also be examining ideas relating to morality, such as the individuality of the fetus, putting your own rights above others and the abortion industry as a whole, which is completely immoral. My second point will be centered around the idea that there are much better substitutes than abortion. I will be examining alternatives such as adoption, as well as looking into the psychological stress and harm abortion can cause the recipient (the mother), as well as the doctor. While your arguments sound very interesting, I would like to question your first paragraph. Do you mean that different fetus' can be aborted at different times based on individual case, or that it doesn't really matter? I was also wondering who ultimately makes the decision of when the abortion takes place, the women or the doctor? Thanks.
This house supports abortion

First I want to establish that I will be focusing on the principle of abortion and thoroughly believe that the time when you can actually get an abortion should be decided by medical professionals and the women involved. You will hear some typical arguments from me, however I will involve some new 'out there' arguments and will put deep analysis into already well established ones as well. My first argument will be centered around the profound affect that a pregnancy can have on a woman's life and how this choice needs to be one of the people directly involved and anything other than that is imposing tough consequences on the woman herself and those loved ones. In this section I will look at the economical, societal and individual well-being that is effected through this incredibly important decision. Through this people who are pro life or pro choice can have their own individual choice. My second argument is philosophical and centered around what makes a human, a person. This is key to debunking the abortion is immoral stance taken by pro life supporters and most likely my opposition's stance. The argument is 'It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. A human foetus is an innocent human being. Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.' My second argument targets the second statement in the pro life argument and puts forward a different view than what you have probably heard before. Through this piece I wish to make some nuanced arguments and take a different approach than you might have heard before.
Rap Battle 12

This is the ultimate battleground! It's time for me to win this round and take the crown. Boy stop messing around before I put you underground in the burial grounds. I spit bars like I'm a Greyhound. You spit bars like a Bulldog. I'm the Labrador and you're just a little tiny Chihuahua. It's wartime! I'll brutally beat you like it was a victimless crime and destroy your face and turn it into hydrated lime and it will be sublime. Anytime and any day, I'll torture you like you were a prisoner in Guatemala Bay and hit you that Electric Ray and keep you from running away and be the reason for your family's exponential decay. On Jefferson Davis' birthday will soon become a national holiday in the cities of Uruguay and Paraguay every Trinity Sunday. You must really have the nerve to call my mother a whore while your mother's upper lip has a whole bunch of cold sores since Sophomore. You're done for like the Commodore 64 and more of a disaster than the First World War and Borders Bookstores. I swore that after this I will ignore. You're the old herbivore and I'm a young carnivore and a matador who just killed you off like a Dinosaur and German prisoners of war. Your bars will never be half as raw as me! It's time for you to flee so go home and sip your green tea while watching an episode of Glee. Your bars are crappy while I'm on a bars spree. I'm straight up burning you third degree. Fvck off! You ain't nothing but a wannabe. Can't you see that I'm a killer bee that deserves his Master's Degree. It seems that your family has a history of Hepatitis B. You're a cancerous disease. So do the whole world a favor and hang yourself from the hanging tree.
Rap Battle 12

My final round my final go, gonna see if I can do it in one blow, my opponent has held up, or so he thinks so, But i'll kill him cause I'm cold as snow, Deric, a freestyler with the laziest rhymes, maybe it's time to give up already, you aint lookin' so steady as I deal a heavy load on your shoulders, your dead meat, h0e, you dead beat, low life scoundrel, stealing peoples food stamps, you hood man, Considered poor even in the ghetto, let's go, I'll leave you indebt hoe cause you bein' disrespectfoe, I'm Tupac, your Drake, I'm too hot, your late for your beating, your defeating, your gonna be conceding in this round cause already your hearts beating, the reading says your dead cause it aint beeping, got everyone leaping for joy, no one weeping in sorrow, cause your @ss has died before the morrow, Your honor in this rap battle is something I can't even borrow because it's non-existant, Now stop this rant, It can't stack up to mine, Mine's up high in sky where the birds fly. I'm Washington, you're Andrew Johnson, I'm the one, you're the pawn, son. I run this game like a chess board, I go to bed with your mom and I'm like "Yes, wh0re!", I got the best score on this boar, He a wild animal, I'M the gladiator, your just a cannibal, suckin on djcks, eatin them whole, the weed is so cold, I blaze that shjt up, give up, cause you gettin' ripped up like all the rappers I faced, Your @ss is no trace after I lacerate at a more faster rate than you can masturbate (cause the only pvssy you get is your hand) I'm the man, killin Capatain Hook (You) like Peter Pan, Your defeat is bland cause I'm fighting such a boring rhymer, your storing grime while I'm extorting jibes that get people wharping time because that shjt is dope, like it comin' from the Pope, Givin those with little hope a little joke to laugh at, Get yo @ss back, Cause I'm on the fast track, rap attack, like a Star Wars At-At, like a MAC-10, Tat tat! Barrel at your skull, all you brought to this world is dull, it's time to end this fool, I pull the trigger, out pops his brains, Blood everywhere I'm gonna need some Gain to wash it out, so much it's insane, but I aint got no disdain, I'm not prayin' but playin' because this homo is dead. So bjtch, don't even respond, your just another fish in the pond, Of me they're fond, In this battle you entered but were conned, you just got pawned by JimShady, you can't invade me or slay me, not even maybe. You fvckin baby. (I'll let you have your turn on Round 4 since your Round 1 was short, thanks for the rap battle it was fun, but you are done, son, you homo drink cum, you dumb, kill you wit my gun then fvck your mum and your hun. Ohhh!)