BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Gay marriage

Also, before we go any further I'd like to formally define marriage because your link didn't work. . http://topics.law.cornell.edu... ~~~~~~~~ Responses ~~~~~~~~ ///I would like to point out that marriage is not going anywhere anytime soon, and in order to be fair to every individual it should include everyone's will. Meaning two consensual adults should be able to marry each other regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, place of organ, or any other such factor. /// The point that my scenario is unlikely is moot. We also disagree on what is fair. I don't think it's fair that people should be able to benefit financially because they have an emotional connection with another person. ~ ///He seems to be worried that there will be an increase in immigration, which I do not oppose, however we could alter the rights so that in order to be married in this country both parties must have lived in the country for X amount of time, or the one immigrating must go through legal procedures. /// I'm not worried about immigration; I'm just opposed to legislation that favors one group over another. An example of this is that it is easier to immigrate if you marry an American. This is unjust. Bringing up arguments about changing the definition of marriage to support your argument is also not really a valid option as your stance is that marriage should be granted, not some other legal binding with the same title. ~ ///Even if you are against marriage I am sure you can agree to equality. /// I do agree to equality, which is why I disagree with marriage. ~ I await my opponent's response and hopes that she waits to respond.
Gay marriage

I would like to point out that marriage is not going anywhere anytime soon, and in order to be fair to every individual it should include everyone's will. Meaning two consensual adults should be able to marry each other regardless of gender, race, sexual orientation, place of organ, or any other such factor. He seems to be worried that there will be an increase in immigration, which I do not oppose, however we could alter the rights so that in order to be married in this country both parties must have lived in the country for X amount of time, or the one immigrating must go through legal procedures. Of course I do not see why if immigration is the purpose they would want to marry same gender. I am aware that you can have wills and powers of attorneys, but it is not the same. If marriage exists it should be fair to all parties. Even if you are against marriage I am sure you can agree to equality. Also I'm sorry I was using that to define marriage and should have specified as such.
Gay marriage

. . . Terms clarified: Marriage - the legal definition Civil Marriage - a term that I use to illustrate the concept of a type of marriage that does not include financial factors. Civil benefits - refers to all of the non-financial benefits of marriage except for the immigration fast-lane ~~~~~~~~ Argument ~~~~~~~~ Contention 1: Marriage violates the 14th amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. The 14th amendment guarantees all citizens of the United States equal protection under the law [1]. Citizens that are married are granted rights that are not afforded to those that are not married. In fact the number of individual rights granted to those who are married outnumbers those granted to individuals not married by over 1000 [2]. Some specific examples of unjust freedoms gained through marriage is that it allows any non-resident of America to gain an immigration 'fast lane,' or it makes it easier for them to move to this country and they can ignore many traditional immigration regulations. Marriage also grants spousal exemption from estate taxes [3]. I do not believe that a person deserves special treatment simply because they had an emotion that made them want to spend their life with another person [2]. ~ Contention 2: Most of the civil benefits of marriage can be gained through alternate legal avenues that do not involve marriage. For instance there are forms that you can fill out on-line that grant another individual your power of attorney [6, 7]. I ask that you read the provided link [4] to learn about this concept if you are currently unaware of what it entails. You can also cerate a last will and testament that does many things for you legally, even if those involved are not married. ~ It is for these reasons that I believe that homosexual marriage should not be legalized. My arguments are valid based on the transitive property, if I oppose all marriage then I by necessity oppose gay marriage. I look forward to my opponent's response and hope that this can remain a semantics-free debate. P.S. Your link doesn't seem relevant to your arguments. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org... [2] http://www.hrc.org... [3] http://www.shusterman.com... [4] http://www.expertlaw.com... [5] http://www.expertlaw.com... [6] http://en.wikipedia.org... [7] http://www.expertlaw.com...
Gay marriage

My position is that gays deserve the same rights as everyone else. If you are able to marry your girlfriend, why would you want a lesbian marrying her girlfriend? Through the years gays have been fighting for equality and acceptance. The thought that civil unions are the same thing as marriage is wrong. If a heterosexual couple has a right to choose which, why should a homosexual couple not have the same right? Gay marriage does not affect anyone not wanting to be a part of it, so basically if you don't want to marry another guy, you don't have to. The fight is for equality, and choice, banning their marriage is wrong because it is close minded and hinders other peoples rights. http://dictionary.reference.com...
Gay marriage

~~~~~~~ Rebuttals ~~~~~~~ ///Most of the rights they have aren't even that big of a deal. /// Let's take a look at some of these rights that "aren't a big deal," shall we: * Larger benefits under some [government] programs if married * Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs * Tax-free transfer of property * Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime * For those divorced or widowed, the right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits These are just a few of the benefits that being married affords a person. Now, why should they be able to receive these benefits? They aren't available to your average person. A person shouldn't be able to significantly benefit from the government because of what amounts to having a stronger than normal emotional connection to another individual. ~ ///I'm pretty sure that if you marry an American you still have to go through the legal process. My uncle (from England) married my aunt and he had to get a green card and do all that still. /// You do, but it is much, much, much easier via spousal sponsorship. ~ ///Since marriage wont be taken out any time soon, gay marriage should be legalized. /// The point is moot, the viability of my position does not affect it's legitimacy.
Creationism Lacks the Evidence Required To Be Considered a Valid Argument for the Origin of Mankind

My assertion is that Creationism is not a valid argument because of the lack of evidence in support for the stance and because of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Background: I believe the theory of the "Big Bang" in the context that time started from a zero point from which all matter started to expand from a single, undefined point. I do not believe any "explosion" or "bang" was effected during the birth of the universe -- just a sudden expansion of matter from a singularity. The evidence for the "Big Bang" is overwhelming and includes (but is not limited to) the fact that galaxies and stars are moving (properties of EM waves confirm this in addition to the Doppler Effect) and that they are moving "away" from us (redshifting) and some are moving toward us to some extent (blueshifting). Creationists also tend to reject the idea that the earth was created millions of years ago, but rather they contend that it was created in the span of a few millennia. However, there is evidence here on Earth that can be dated to further back beyond the time that creationists claim was the "beginning" through scientifically proven methods of dating such as "carbon dating." At this point, the creationist theory ought to be rejected, however I am open to hearing new evidence to support Creationism and discuss its validity or to debate the validity of my refutations.
I believe in the whole there is a constant that does not change.

Yes, that's correct. I AM claiming that I am the whole. The whole of the intelligent portion of this wank of a website. If it's logic you're looking for, then take a short rope, find a high beam and string yourself up like a limp puppet. That's the only logical thing you'll find in your abortion of an existence. The very few people you have actually managed to trap in your circle of "friends" will hopefully find you and will rejoice. Kill yourself cunt.
The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

OPENINGI accept all my opponents terms and rules. Thank you for providing an exact version of scripture and an easy to use site (though your previous search disappearing when you clicked on it was annoying when trying to read previous verses). I will only provide three contradictions for this first round, pending my opponent accepting a line of argument I would like to use in the comment section. Moving on. .. ARGUMENTSGenuine Contradictions of Consequence:There are all examples of genuine contradictions of consequence which I believe meet my opponent criteria. .. a) How should mankind pray? Matthew 6:7-13 strongly suggests that one only uses the Lord ’s Prayer rather than asking for specific things, as “…when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. ”However John 14:14 clearly states: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it. ” and John 16:23-24 further contradicts it. This is a clear contradiction between John and Matthew. b) How is mankind saved? First let me establish what the Bible means by works, since I wasn’t sure. I assumed it meant actions and I was correct. ‘Works’ is doing good deeds for others. Romans 3:28 clearly states that man are judged by their faith, not their ‘works’. Galatians 2:16 elaborates on this. James 2:14-17 says that (paraphrasing) without ‘works’, faith means nothing. James 20 and 26 elaborate on this. This is a clear contradiction between Romans and James. c) Can all sins be forgiven? This is a really obvious one:Acts 10:43 (“To him all the prophets bear witness that everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins through his name. ”) and more specifically 1 John 1:9 (“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. ”) strongly infer that all sins can be forgiven through Jesus yet…Matthew 12:32 (“…whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. ”) and more specifically Mark 3:28-30 (“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin”— for they were saying, ‘He has an unclean spirit’. )”This one is blatant; John completely contradicts Mark. CONCLUSION I am interested to see how my opponent responds to these contradictions. They seem fairly clear to me.
The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

In Round 4 Con will enter "Closing Round" or something similar. If Con presents new arguments or rebuttals in Round 4, they are in violation of the terms of this debate and forfeit all 7 points to Pro for the debate. "As per the rules of this debate, I cannot make any new arguments or rebuttals in this round, which is disappointing but fair. I have clearly won this debate, even if it is only by invoking the rules.
The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

OPENINGI am beginning to see a pattern with the rebuttals here, so I’d like to remind my opponent of a few rules he set down in R1…“Con’s burden of proof is to provide adequate biblical citations so that I may find the passages he is referencing. In addition, please use the ESV as the translation as it is both accurate and readable, and using only one translation prevents us from slipping into confusion over variant readings in different translations. ”Now with that, let us get to the counter-rebuttals. COUNTER-REBUTTALSB) I believe that my opponent has broken his own rule. If I had known this debate was going to fall into arguing about the meaning of words from the original Greek version of the Bible, I never would have accepted because I don’t speak ancient Greek and am not in a position to debate about such meaning. My opponent rebuttal of this contradiction deals with the meaning of the word “Pistis”. This word didn’t appear in the translation my opponent gave me to use and clearly makes us “slip into confusion over variant readings in different translations”. I have no doubt that my opponent is correct, however according to the rules he set himself, he cannot rebutt this contradiction using other translations. Given I cannot make any more rebuttals, this alone negates the resolution. D) My opponent explains that Mark 16:14-19 isn’t supposed to be in the text, so there is really no contradiction here. The translation he gave me indeed has this footnote. However, let us remember this definition of “Contains” in round one:“Contradictions that are WITHIN the text. ”Regardless of the footnote, this verse is certainly still within the text and fulfils my opponent's definition. He goes on to speak about the Greek translation, but I’ve already addressed this sort of argument above. I accept my opponent’s explanation of Matthew 28:16-20 and Luke 24:50-51. While I accept your explanation, it seems highly unusual that John wouldn’t include such a pivotal moment as Jesus’s ascension to Heaven. In his explanation of the apparent Acts 1:9-12 contradiction, my opponent says:“The principle we must remember is that ambiguity does not equal contradiction. ”This is a fallacious approach. Yes, ambiguity doesn’t automatically equal contradiction but this doesn’t mean that no contradiction exists. Regardless, my opponent again refers to the Greek text in an attempt to explain away what seems to be a myriad of different accounts of the same event. E) My opponent’s explanation is more than sufficient. I’ll drop point E. CONCLUSIONAs I have shown, my opponent has had to forsake the rules he himself laid down to explain contradictions B & D. This negates the resolution and is a clear victory for Con. I have been more than accepting of my opponent’s soft burden of proof, where he was able to fulfil it (which in most cases he was) but alas, he failed in his duty.
The New Testament contains no genuine contradictions of consequence

REBUTTALSa) That was a solid response; I’ll drop the contradiction.b) I’m afraid I don’t find your response very satisfying.I can’t be sure, since you have used foreign characters, what you are talking about. I know you are talking about the different meanings of words and obviously you’re defining how ‘believe’ has multiple meanings. In the time and the context, the meaning was correct. However, as you stated, this is a difficult one. The problem as I see it is that the translation is flawed. You provided me with a particular translation and I used it. There is a clear contradiction here.Furthermore, the word ‘believe’ doesn’t appear in either of the main verses I cited.c) My opponent refers to ‘a passage’, but doesn’t identify which one. This is very confusing since I cited four passages to show the contradiction.However, on further reading I find his explanation very valid. So I’ll drop this contradiction too.ARGUMENTSd) Jesus’s resurrection and ascensionBefore I begin, let me explain why this is a contradiction of consequence, though it may seem trivial. The resurrection and ascension of Jesus is one of the core foundations of Christianity. So a consistence account of the even it important to ensure it is the truth. Here we have four very different accounts of exactly when Jesus ascended to heaven(surely one of the core moments of the story):In Mark 16:14-19, Jesus ascends while he and his disciples are seated at a table in or near Jerusalem.In Matthew 28:16-20, Jesus’ ascension isn’t mentioned at all, but Matthew ends at a mountain in Galilee. In Luke 24:50-51, Jesus ascends outside, after dinner, and at Bethany and on the same day as the In resurrection.In John, Nothing about Jesus’ ascension is mentioned.In Acts 1:9-12, Jesus ascends at least 40 days after his resurrection, at Mt. Olivet.e) Is Jesus equal to God?Though I don’t this is a question of any REAL significance, it is interesting because it happens during the same Gospel.John 10:30: "I and the Father are one." John 14:28: "The Father is greater than I."CONCLUSIONI am very excited to be debating someone who clearly knows his stuff. I’m excited to see how our last two rounds go.
Electric Cars are overall better than Gas Cars

Safety Other than the fact that smart cars are small they actually have high safety ratings. The ForTwo actually did well in the crash tests that were conducted by the independent insurance institute for Highway Safety and this has high tech front and side air bags to ensure safety. I'm not implying that small gas powered cars are better and safer than larger cars I'm just pointing out that for their size they are able to have great amount of safety available for these cars. HOV Lanes There still isn't that many of them for people to use. There are only a few states that actually have them available. If more states had them available for all electric car users than that would be a good power saver many people. Batteries I don't think the batteries for the smart cars should have been developed without have a safe way to dispose of them. Every year there are thousands and thousands of these batteries that go bad and end up getting tossed into garbage the will later be intoxicating our environment. It's common knowledge that gas cars are polluting our atmosphere but everyone seems to forget about the electric cars and how they are also effecting our environment, not always in the most positive way.
Electric Cars are overall better than Gas Cars

Safety For your section about safety and saying that electric cars are dangerous on the road, well that can happen to any car. Most cars have the same chance of being hit and being dangerous. For example look at the car company Toyota, they had a recall on a few of their models because customers were getting into accidents with the Toyota cars and loosing control while driving. You also said that electrical cars are smaller and that's one of the reasons why they get hit, but gas cars can be small to. Look at the Fiat and smart cars, they are extremely small cars and they run on gas. HOV Lanes The HOV lanes started out for anyone, but later on some of the lanes restricted to electrical cars only. In the state of California they allow people who own electric cars to be able to have one passenger in the car to ride the HOV lanes. The owners are also qualified for an incentive that can take $2,500 off through the state‘s Clean Vehicle Rebate Program. Batteries One of the first things that make disagree the idea of electric cars is how do you get rid of the battery? Scientist are try to come up with a way to recycle them instead of throwing them out. Since the electric cars just came out there are a lot of flaws but ever since hey came out people are trying to come up with ways to make it better.
Electric Cars are overall better than Gas Cars

Environment Well yes but, another hazardous coming from gas powered cars is pollution. 1.7 billion tons of CO2 get released from the tail pipes into the atmosphere according to the Environmental Protection Agency. CO2 is a greenhouse gas that can effect on the environment by contributing to melt polar ice caps, rising ocean level, and warmer climates. We are adding more pollution into the air along with the pollution from factories causing more health risks. People who have asthma can have more attacks, cardiovascular problems, cause problems to the respiratory system making people coughing and wheezing, headaches, a slight chance of cancer, etc. Source You said that coal produces the energy for electricity and it generates to the car's charger, but there are more sources than just coal. Compressed air, liquid nitrogen, hydrogen, solar energy, wind, and waste heat from an internal combustion engine are examples of other sources. Government In fact when you own an eco-friendly vehicle the government in a way pays you. You said that owning and buying an electrical car is expensive, but the government helps you along the side to be able to pay for it. The government gives you $7500 tax credits .This helps pay taxes for the car or something else. The Los Angeles Department of Water gives a lower rate on the electricity used to charge the car and installing a separate meter for the car charger they will give $2000 rebate. A Free Pass You don't have to conserve energy when you hit traffic and worry about wasting energy. There is lane called HOV that are reserved for electrical cars. This allows to pass traffic and for the car not to waste energy. The lane use to allow any type of car as long the person wants to help the environment. They also allowed people to use the lane if they carpooling. Now it's reserved for electric cars only.
Electric Cars are overall better than Gas Cars

Well gas cars aren't that great either. For one thing gas cars are expensive in today's society. It's not expensive when you buy it from a dealer, cars round to $2,000 and up. The thing that makes it expensive is the gas and the maintenance. Gas prices are going up and up. Only few gas stations try to keep it low but it's still high. Today the gas prices range from $3.69-$3.73 per gallon. Before the economy crashed it was somewhere of $2.20. The maintenance for a gas car cost around $100-$400 and no more than $1500. An electric car is the total opposite with the payments that I listed. Electric cars are expensive when you buy it from a dealer (have to admit), but you save a tone of money. Maintenance is less needed and you don't have to worry about the car over heating, oil changes, and ect. You don't have to pay for gas and worry about it going up. Now let's talk about how gas cars are not a great idea for the environment. In the year 2010 one of the top gas franchises, BP, caused an oil spill that put the nation into shock. Tones of gallons where spilling out of the pipe into the ocean. Fishes died, animals soaked in oil, and birds couldn't fly because their wings were being weighed down by the oil. Electric cars don't have pipes and tanks in the ocean with oil pumping through while having a slight chance of an oil spill to happen. Electric cars are simple and don't need all that technical things about having foreigners' trade oils or pump them out of the earth. Electric cars aren't that hazardous and they don't put animals' lives at risk.