BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay Marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

I haven't been focusing as much on this debate as I should have. That was definitely not my plan, because if you didn't post your last round, I wouldn't have been able to either because I'd be on a cruise. By "exist," I assume that you mean recognized by government? Because that's where my response came from. Otherwise, there's no issue. 1. I made the point that the physical differences are what allow for reproduction, and these are the reasons for marriage in the first place. My opponent never responded to that. 2. "Nobody is saying 'Straight people can run around naked but gay people can't' or vice versa. " Exactly. Nobody is allowed to marry people of the same sex. This applies to everybody, not just gays 3. This point is like saying that if you give people money, the people who receive money will have more money. It can't be refuted or argued. My opponent pointed out that government legislates what is or is not marriage for legal purposes, not the church. This is true. 4. My opponent has misinterpreted my argument. I am saying that instead of legalizing gay marriage, it would be better if they just increased the rights of civil unions to that of marriages, but not make them marriages. This removes the argument that people in civil unions have fewer rights, because in this case they would be the same. 5. Marriage is about love between a man and a woman. Not a man and a man or a woman and a woman. 6. Great. 1. For every right, there is an opposite right. The union of marriage also effects the government recognizing said marriage. 2. This clearly means that some people want to marry things besides other people. If gay marriage was legalized through the excuse that people can be born that way, then that woman should be allowed to marry a fence because she was born that way. Clearly, this is ridiculous. Just because somebody wants something doesn't mean that they should get it. CONCLUSION: My opponent is arguing that marriages and civil unions are not the same thing. She ignored my argument that it would be a better alternative to give civil unions the same rights as marriages than to legalize gay marriages. She ignored my point about the rock and the dirt, thus the point is conceded, so my opponent agrees that civil unions with the same rights as marriages are not necessarily marriages.
Gay Marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

My opponent stated that the resolution implied legalization only with the legalization of heterosexual marriages. This removes the argument that neither should be recognized by government or given rights. 1. My opponent only made the point that gender can have a meaning besides sex. She did not comment on my response. Such should be considered conceded. 2. It was a great argument. Everybody has the right to marry somebody of the opposite gender. Everybody. You are changing it to what people want. Well, some people may want to run around naked. Does this mean that they should be allowed to? Of course not. As I have pointed out, this is not discrimination as my opponent puts it. 3. As this is about the legalization, government automatically has something to do with it. I can't say that they don't. That would be stupid. 4. This is a better option because it would not be marriage, but civil union. They would not be the same. For one thing, this debate is not about civil unions. For another, civil unions aren't recognized as marriages. They would be recongnized to have the same rights as marriages. 5. Because it goes against even the definition of marriage. 6. Okay, I'm just going to concede this point because it doesn't make sense. MY CONTENTIONS: 1. It's a great analogy. Nobody is allowed to run around naked, though some people want to. My opponent now claims that gay marriage discriminates on sex, not sexuality. It is legal to discriminate certain things by sex, such as bathrooms and locker rooms. 2. I have no idea why anybody would want to, but there are crazy people out there, like the woman who believes she is married to the Berlin Wall. http://www.telegraph.co.uk.... The point is not why they want to, but that they want to. CONCLUSION: There is no discrimination based on sexuality, as my opponent has tried to say. "Plus, if civil unions are going to be the same as gay marriage, why not just call it marriage?" If rocks and dirt have the same legal status in America (none), then why don't we call dirt rocks? Because they aren't the same thing.
Gay Marriage ought to be legalized in the United States.

Okay. It seems that my opponent has restricted the arguments that I am allowed to use, so I'll have to settle with what's left. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... Gender: sex: the feminine gender. As gender and sex are synonyms, this point is worthless; however, I will explain anyway. The biological chromosomes are more important than personal characteristics and traits because they are what allow for reproduction. This is the reason that there are marriages in the first place. 2. The right to marry a person of the opposite sex is everybody's right (besides the regulations about age and whatnot). The difference is that gays want more rights that nobody has. 3. This is a point that I can't really argue against, since my opponent declared that the resolution implies that I am not allowed to argue that government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage in the first place. There is nothing I can do against this contention. 4. A better option than legalizing gay marriage would be to give civil unions the same legal rights as marriages, though I still oppose both. 5. You are correct in that marriage is losing its moral value. Even so, this does not mean that it should be further lowered. These issues are independent from the argument of gay marriage. 6. It is already clear that all people are capable of love and commitment, but there are different types of "love." These differences can't be ignored. Also, these gay individuals shouldn't be having kids in these ways in the first place. I would like to add some contentions of my own. 1. So-called "discrimination" is not bad There are some people who want to be able to run about the streets of America naked. More people don't want them too. Does this mean that the people who want to be naked in public are being discriminated against? Only as much as homosexuals are when they aren't allowed to marry each other. 2. Rolling the bar If the regulations of marriage can change from "one man and one woman" to "two people," what else could it change to? Maybe a man wants to marry his dog. Or his house. Or his neighbor's house. It doesn't end. The bar must be set in one place, and the best place for that bar is where it has been: "one man and one woman." CONCLUSION: It would be preferable by most to, instead of legalizing gay marriage, to just increase the rights of civil unions to that of marriages. My opponent must prove why gay marriage would be proffered over this option. I would also like my opponent to explain why these gay individuals would on average be paying more in taxes than most.
the limit to moral human behavior is division

Since Pro has not provided any definitions, I will do it for this debate.Moral : concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior : based on what you think is right and good : considered right and good by most people : agreeing with a standard of right behavior Division : the act or process of dividing something into parts : the way that something is divided : something that physically divides or separates something else Based on these defintions, division has nothing to do with moral behavior by humans. Moral behavior is doing what is classified as right, division is splitting something into parts. There's no link between these two words, Pro must attempt to find a link between these two words.
Parents Are Responsible For Teens Delinquency

Teenagers are more likely to have behavioural problems or become delinquent because they lack adequate time and proper moral lesson from their parent. Firstly i'll define the major terms,which are;Parents,Teens,Delinquency. PARENT: One who has procreated offspring,a father or mother. TEENS:The years of a person's life from 13 to 19,hence a teenager is a person between the age of 13 to 19. DELINQUENCY:Committing an offence or failing to perform a duty. I will explain few points amongst many,how parents are responsibe for teens delinquency. Family Disintegration.This is basically when the family is apart.A disintegrated family can lead to the misbehaviour of teenagers.A child from a broken home or with a single parent will lack the support,love and care of the other.Example,if the father isn't with living with the child,such child would lack the fatherly love and discipline.Most fathers would know how to discipline their teens,but when he is apart or not living together as family,he would not be able to perform and also teach the child the morals and other lessons such child is expected to learn.That is one reason you see teenagers misbehaving and participating in illegal activities because there's no one to help put them on the right track. Parental Negligence.Most parents do not pay proper attention to the children,expecially parents who are always busy with voluminous work.Parents who are always busy with work do not actually have the time to sit their teenagers down and give them the moral lessons.Such teenagers who already lacks the love,care and attention from their parent tend to misbehave or easily get influenced by their peers.Teenagers would always want to associate,hence when they associate with the wrong peers,the pressure becomes too high and because they cant help it,they just fall to it.That is the more reason we have teenagers invoving themselves in drugs and other illegal and criminal activities. Exposure To Violence.When parents allow their children to be exposed to violence,those teenagers would learn from what they have seen and surely want to experiment.An environment where buyind and selling of drugs exist,environment where gun shot is always heard,environment where there is always fighting.If parent allow their children to be exposed to it,this teenagers would one day get adapted to it and hence,they will practise it,even without the notice of their parents.Another example is when the parents (father and mother) have misunderstanding and always a fight in the family,the father always maltreating the mother and saying harsh words on her.This teenagers learns from this and then begin to exhibit this characters outside the house,unknowing to the parents. With all vivid facts,parents are evidently responsible for their teenager's delinquency.All parents are required to be more attentive to their teens,because their behaviours would tell how good the parents are in training their teenagers.
Obamacare

Yes I think it is right for everyone in America to have free healthcare. Unless you completely hate people there is no reason not to. What I do not think is right is the way the government gets the money to pay for the billions of peoples healthcare. Those people who have worked hard their entire life deserve their money just as anyone else. If they would like to donate or give money that is fine but by no means should it be forced. There are also people with circumstantial money. Just because their net income is over 225,000 dollars does not mean they keep any of that and could in fact just barely be getting by. For all of the people in that situation is it really fair to take more of their money? You may say how there are many rich people and have more money than they know what to do with, however there are over a billion people in the country and more than a million people have worked hard from nothing to get where they are. Healthcare is important and can save lives but if it is to be given to everyone, a fair way of obtaining the money must be thought of. Isn't our country all about equality?
Dogs are better than cats

I'm fine with my opponets definition for better. First we should look at his first point "If you are allergic to dogs but not to cats then a cat is clearly a more suitable pet" This statement isn't necessarily right there are Hypoallergenic Dogs for example an american hairless terrior. http://www.strongpets.com... Second we look at his second point he states because cats have a less attack rate they are better. I would just like to state that there are many breeds of dogs little to big. If the family has young child it would be best for him to get a little dog. also most dogs who got raised in abusive living situations. Third he states that "A cat is easier to look after and requires much less attention than a dog." He has no evidence to support his point. Fourth he states "Some individuals may personally identify more with cats or have more of a 'cat-type' personality." This is irrealevant to the debate. Fifth he says "Some people may have a phobia of dogs, for them a cat is more suitable" If a person has a "phobia" of dogs he cannot say that a cat is more suitable because he doesn't know the person with the phobia. Sixth he says dogs require training and good handling but a cat also needs the same kind of training so the cat will not be dangerous. Thank you.
Dogs are better than cats

Respectful thanks to my youthful opponent for instigating this debate. As most of her other recent debates on this site seem to have been age restricted, I hope she does not object to an old geezer like me accepting this debate. I assume that she is so confident on this issue that she is sure she can win against an opponent of any age, although, of course, I do not mean to imply that older = better debater. My opponent makes two absolute statements. If I can show at least one example of a situation where a cat is "better" than a dog or a "better" pet, I should win this debate, although that of course will be up to voters. As my opponent refers to pets, I will assume my opponent intends to limit our discussion to domestic cats and dogs rather than including foxes, wolves, lions, tigers etc. I will offer a definition for "better": "(comparative of `good') superior to another (of the same class or set or kind) in excellence or quality or desirability or suitability" http://www.google.co.uk... My opponent says: "Dogs are better than cats" Obviously dogs are better at certain things (eg. sniffing out drugs) and cats are better at others (eg. catching mice) so to make a blanket statement that one is better than the other is clearly unsupportable. My opponent says: "Dogs are better pets [than cats]" This depends on what you want out of a pet and is different for different people. Some examples of situations where cats are better. 1. If you are allergic to dogs but not to cats then a cat is clearly a more suitable pet. http://allergies.about.com... 2. If you have young children a cat is probably a safer option. 11,100,000 Google hits for 'dog attacks child' (0.31 seconds), 320,000 for cat attacks child. (0.30 seconds) http://www.google.co.uk... 3. A cat is easier to look after and requires much less attention than a dog. 4. Some individuals may personally identify more with cats or have more of a 'cat-type' personality. 5. Some people may have a phobia of dogs, for them a cat is more suitable. 6. Dogs generally require training and good handling to avoid being dangerous to people, some people are not responsible enough to own dogs and for them a cat makes more sense. An excellent example of this last point is the fact that until 1986 in the UK people needed a license to own a dog, but have never needed a license to own a cat. I look forward to my opponent's arguments. Thankyou.
Internet Censorship in USA

You sure do like the word if, and you never explain what rights are infringed.You also say "putting other people's rights in jeopardy is an infringement of their rights."Would me saying that we should censor the Internet put people's rights in jeopardy; therefore, infringing rights?Obscenity is not just for children."The five previous points infringe upon others rights, and can, therefore, be censored."This makes you for Internet censorship because you agree there are situations where it should be censored.It is not unconstitutional for the government to censor to censor inappropriate sites for two reasons. One, Obscenity isn't protected by the first amendment. Two, the first amendment say "Congress" so a state could censor it then.In conclusion, Internet censorship is perfectly constitutional and my opponent agrees.
Internet Censorship in USA

Clear and Present Danger. If a dangerous situation arises, and someone gets hurt, that would be a violation of their rights; therefore, in this case, the right can be suspended if someone's rights are infringed. Fighting words. Nobody has the right to start a fight or commit violence. Therefore, suspending the right is acceptable if someone's rights are infringed. Libel and Slander. Nobody has the "right to lie" - or "damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization." Therefore, suspending the right is acceptable since a person's or organization's rights are infringed. Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests. During a time of war or other conflict, the citizen's rights are in jeopardy if the war is turning against them. Therefore, putting other people's rights in jeopardy is an infringement of their rights. Obscenity. Nobody has the right to fill a child with obscenity. It infringes a parent's right to educate their child on things that may be considered "obscene" - things such as sex, pornography, language, etc. "These are legitimate and constitutional reasons to censor the Internet." "Congress" has the right to suspend the First Amendment if other's rights are being infringed upon. The five previous points infringe upon other's rights, and can, therefore, be censored. Other than that, "Congress" has no right censor speech or media if no one's rights are being infringed upon. "Other reasons to censor the Internet include to protect children from accessing certain inappropriate sites." First, it is unconstitutional for the government to censor those websites; doing so, they are suspending an adult's right to access those sites. However, parents and private corporations do have the right to censor these things from their children. Why? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Congress - government - should make no laws that limit free speech, free press, etc. unless they infringe upon others' rights. However, parents and private corporations do have the right to censor things. In conclusion, Internet censorship performed by the government is unconstitutional unless it infringes upon others' rights.
Internet Censorship in USA

My opponent claims that determining what speech is acceptable and what press is acceptable it an abuse of our constitutional rights; however, the government already does this in cases of Clear and Present Danger, Fighting Words, Libel and Slander, Obscenity, and Conflict with Other Legitimate Social or Governmental Interests. [1] My opponent recognizes child pornography as a reason to censor the Internet. Another example could also be to protect intellectual property rights which would be legal under the constitution in Article I. Section 8. "by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries" [2] These are legitimate and constitutional reasons to censor the Internet. Other reasons to censor the Internet include to protect children from accessing certain inappropriate sites. Although, this does not affect anyone's rights I would claim this is also a legitimate reason to censor the Internet. Further, sites that compromise national security should also be censored, as this is already legal to censor speech that does so it should apply to the Internet too. None of these censors are a violation of the Constitution. Sources: [1]. http://www.freedomforum.org... [2]. http://www.archives.gov...
Internet Censorship in USA

Internet censorship by the government is against our constitutional rights. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." This is the first amendment of the US constitution - the clause the provides free speech, free press, etc. Internet censorship by the government is an abuse of our constitutional rights; it allows for "Congress" - aka government - to determine what speech is acceptable, what press is acceptable, etc. Internet censorship by the government is an abuse of free speech. Government has no right to make any rules that abridge or limit our free speech, unless it infringes someone else's rights. I will explain this later. The Constitution clearly lays out that government cannot limit our free speech. By allowing the government to censor things that it deems as "harmful", Internet censorship by "Congress" is an abuse of our constitutional rights. Internet censorship by the government is an abuse of free press. To define what the press is, "Chief Justice Hughes defined the press as, "every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion." The First Amendment's Freedom of the Press Clause has been extended to media including newspapers, books, plays, movies, and video games." Pulled from http://en.wikipedia.org.... Remember, Chief Justice Hughes made this statement in 1938 - before the formation of the Internet. However, the Internet is a huge hub for information and opinion - so, the Internet is still considered the "press". By determining what is appropriate and inappropriate for its people to see, unless it infringes upon others' rights, the government is denying us our Constitutional rights - because "Congress" cannot make any legislation that infringes upon our free speech, free press, etc. Unless it infringes upon others' rights... A prominent reason for Internet censorship is child pornography. Child pornography is infringement on the child's' rights; there is no denying this. Because it infringes upon someone's rights, child porn can be censored. An example of this can be the revoking of felons' voting rights; if you infringe upon someone else's rights, your rights can be revoked. But the censorship of information by the government that does not infringe upon others' rights is an abuse of our constitutional rights. Since we are provided with the freedoms of speech and press, we are simply taking advantage of the rights we are given. Unless information infringes upon someone elses' rights, "Congress" has no right to censor information. In conclusion, Internet censorship by the government is an abuse of our Constitutional rights because "Congress" does not have the right to abridge our freedom of speech and freedom of press. Unless this speech and press infringes upon others' rights, like in the instance of child porn, the US government has no right to censor information from its people.