BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Is marriage a gay rights issue.

Should marriage as an institution be a gay rights issue? The argument that often occurs, is should homosexuals have the same access to marriage as heterosexuals. I pose a different question. Should the institution of a religious union be apart of government? This is to exclude the idea of a legal union for gaining access to custody of children, homes, insurance, ect.. and to have a merit in court should a disagreement in ownership or access occur. I argue no. Reason: Anytime a law can give access to one group, it gains the ability to remove the same access. Allowing government to control marriage has lead to a disgusting polarization among people. It is a distracting issue that takes away from issues, voters should be concerned with. Does this mean that discrimination might and probably will occur thanks to religious institution? Yes, it is their right, just as it is the Phelps family has the right to disgrace fallen soldiers every day. To limit an individual's or an institution's right to free expression, even if that expression is hate, defeats everything that makes freedom great. Our ability to disagree is what empowers us and makes us great. So to make a religious institution designed to create a union a government regulated commodity (hetero only or homosexuals allowed) chips away at that freedom. In the debate, the issue of our freedom is ignored and it becomes a bickering match between who's toes are going to be stepped on in this topic's room. In reality, it's a room government shouldn't even be in and by having it here we chip freedom away bit by bit. Resolution: Shift the discussion from gay rights. Get government out of the business of religious regulation. Bring the issue of all unions that want legal recognition to not have a religious union associated with it. Removing certain requirements that need genders and genetic compatibility for procreation. This allowing all people; gay, straight, Christian or otherwise to create a legal union without the need of government to infringe upon religious or social lifestyle freedoms. Rules: 1- Anything that sounds factual requires a reference (the constitution counts), evidence only required upon request and if not brought up in the following argument, it will be considered falsification and cheating. 2- This can be about gay rights but I am aiming for more of a governments purpose sexual and religious freedom 3- No swearing I don't have round criteria set up. I have taken the first argument and would like each argument there after to be a rebuttal with the last person getting a closing argument.
Citizens should be allowed to own guns.

I also realize that you are pro firearms. I will use logic to reason with you. First I would like to point out the fact the guns can protect Innocent people for being killed as we see in this case here. . http://www.wsbtv.com... Also I would like to point out the fact that guns don't kill people. People kill people. Someone could kill me with a kitchen knife. Are we going to band kitchen knives? NO. Someone could kill me with a baseball bat. Are we going to band baseball bats? No. How are you going to prevent someone from killing me with their fist? Are you going to chop off their arms? No. I would also like to suggest a resolution to the crime. I believe that if America becomes hard on crime criminals will wake up and stop committing all the crime they are now. For example any rape or murder crime should be charged with the death penalty. I will save my best argument for last. Now I would like to here the side of con.
Citizens should be allowed to own guns.

"Citizens should be allowed to own guns. I am for the right to own firearms. The con of this debate must prove why we should not own firearms. " The instigator has the burden of proof. You are making the claim that "Citizens should be allowed to own guns. " Using this logic, I can claim that I am petting my pet Pikachu, and ask you to disprove it. As you are making the claim, you must make the argument as to why we SHOULD have the right to bear arms. Thank you.
Resolved: China is, or will have reached superpower status in the near future.

I will be arguing that China will NOT become a superpower and is not now. Definition of SUPERPOWER 1: excessive or superior power 2a : an extremely powerful nation; specifically : one of a very few dominant states in an era when the world is divided politically into these states and their satellites b : an international governing body able to enforce its will upon the most powerful states Define China as People's Republic of China NOT the Republic of China (Taiwan)
Ban mandatory subjects from high school.

This arguement would be about banning mandatory subjects for high schools. I would be representing the the "Pro/For" side to this debate. This debate would have 3 rounds. The first round would be used to introduce the debators, clarify the rules and definitions. The actual debate would start at round two. Voting period would last 3 days, time to argue would be 48 hours and a maximum of 6,000 characters per arguement.RULES- No use of Profanity (Swearing)- No trolling- Labeling your sources is optional and is only mandatory if your opponent ask for the sourcesDefinitions- Ban: Officially or legally prohibit (e.g. Putting a ban on television)- Mandatory: Required by law or rules (e.g. It is mandatory to wear a seat belt)- High School: Grade 9 to 12Opponent you are obligated to address any info, rules or definitions that I have missed, but you can't change any of the info, rules or definitions that have been said.
Ban mandatory subjects from high school.

Before we start I just want to address that the examples that I would be using are all coming from the school board I grew up in (Ontario, Canada). I am unaware about the school boards in places like the US, UK, ect..., but my opponent is free to use examples from the school board he grew up in or from a school board he fimiliar with.1. Mandatory courses distract a person from reaching their goalsLets say I wanted to be an accountant. According to the Brock University's accounting program, it is required to take grade 12 english and 2 math courses and for the sake of it, I'll add economics and law. In total that is 5 courses yet the school board forces us to take 8. All this does is create more unnecessary work for students and can bring their overall average down significantly. If the student scores a low enough average, it could prevents that student from getting into the best universities or even any university at all. 2. English classThe reason why Brock University listed english as a required course is because the school board I grew up in said that it was mandatory to take english from grade 9 to grade 12. So if you were to go on any university or college program it would always say that grade 12 english is required. Back to my arguement, high school english class does teach kids to be better writers, but by writers I mean book authors not business type writers. It was careers class that taught me how to write a resume and covering letter. Today's english class is all about detecting symbolism in novels, it's nothing beneficial to someone who wants to become as I said an accoutant, salesman, cop, ect... going back to my first arguement all this does is distract a student from the more important subjects and brings down their overall average.SOURCEShttp://www.electronicinfo.ca...
Coke not Pepsi

My opponent, having himself no argument for the subjective total of enjoyment in Coke vs subjective enjoyment in Pepsi, leaves you voters to make your decision based on your own feelings about Coca Cola or Pepsi. However, this is a debate. This is neither an opinion nor is it a poll. Voters, vote for Pro if you feel that he has given enough good reasons which have been supported by credible sources in favor of his position. Vote for Con if you feel that he has not. Thank You
Coke not Pepsi

True, I have not sourced facts. Why should I? I can not prove the validity of these facts and if I could I can not count on the effective outcome on the perceptions of the voters. My leap of faith here assumes coke and Pepsi exist, that they exist similarly for other people. And that others experience them similarly . I am counting on those who vote existing and perceiving that they themselves prefer Pepsi as I suspect my opponent does as well due to non admittance. I call this the proof is in the pudding approach.
Coke not Pepsi

Pro is arguing that Coke is better than Pepsi. My opponent makes the following arguments: 1. The taste of Coca Cola affects more areas in the mouth and is therefore more enjoyable. 2. Coca Cola has a richer and more interesting history. 3. Coca Cola has a better logo and brand. 4. Coca Cola has a prettier color when held up to the light. I shall address each argument numerically: 1. Pro needs to provide sources to show that Coca Cola affects more areas in the mouth than Pepsi, and Pro also needs to show that the enjoyment of flavor is based upon the number of areas affected in the mouth. 2. Coca Cola does have a richer and more interesting history than Pepsi. However, the Nintendo Entertainment System also has a richer history than the XBOX One. This is not an important factor in determining which product is better than the other. 3. The look of a product as well as the entire experience of a product (branding, see source below) is subjective. Therefore, it cannot be used to show the betterness of Coca Cola. I can just as well say that Pepsi has a better logo and branding. 4. This is, again, a subjective argument. I can just as well say that Pepsi looks prettier, since a statement of beauty in this situation is subjective. Pro has given us no good reason to think that Coca Cola is better than Pepsi Vote Con Source for definition of branding: http://gistbrands.net...
Being a realist is better than being an optimist

However, who said that realists cannot motivate people and help them emotionally? Being a realist doesn't mean to think that there is no hope. I even think that people would be more eager to perceive a motivation from a realist rather than from an optimist. Here are the reasons: 1) Realists evaluate a situation soberly, what sometimes cannot be said about about optimists. That is why, it's more reliable to trust a realist than an optimist. If a realist says, "I can do this project before the deadline", you believe him, because you know that he takes into consideration all his strengths and weaknesses as well as factors which can influence his work both positively and negatively. However, when an optimist makes decision, he is more likely to look only on the bright sides and forget about his drawbacks, which can lead to wrong evaluation of himself, and, consequently, to the wrong decision. 2) Realists are more determined than optimists. While an optimist can be in the same position from day to day thinking that everything "will get better someday" and doing nothing for improving their life, realists clearly understand that no "happy end" is going to come by miracle and that their future are only in the hands and depends utterly on themselves. Because of that, they tend to make actions quicker and more frequently than optimists do.
Being a realist is better than being an optimist

I'd honestly would be protesting for this, however I'll accept to conflict with your claim. People who are realistic can also be optimistic, people who are realistic normally seem rude to those who don't see the world with individuals in it. Being optimistic about situation, ideal, understanding,etc helps put a point their, people normally who are optimist, most of the time help or, put a point there, however we just need to get their. I'm aware they don't actually provided help, as humans do have emotions, they help those who need the emotionally help, they give motivation to people, they speak words that others will listen to in a emotionally and spiritually (sometimes) way. I will admit they're announce needs to be abolished.
Obese Christians should be taught that they will burn in Hell

However, as my opponent himself pointed out, "this is not some health-holocaust" and I believe it would be much kinder to persuade obese Christians to atone for their sins by eating less and doing more exercise with the threat of burning in Hell for all eternity hanging over them as an extra incentive. You see, if an obese thought that every cheeseburger equated to a red-hot poker up the jacksie he might think twice before turning into the McDonald's Drive-Thru. That's right, it's time that Christian preachers told the obese straight: stop eating starving children's meals by consuming more than your fair share of the world's finite food resources or you'll be tortured in Hell for the rest of time. Thank you.
Obese Christians should be taught that they will burn in Hell

What is the advantage in condemning Christians to hell because they are overweight? What purpose would that serve? Why don't we gather all obese people and put them on a remoteness island, where they have to hunt animals, gather food and fight each other to survive? That will force them to get healthy and when all of them are fit, they will be allowed to come back to our society. "Brilliant idea", you might say. Now, I am not an expert in this area but if you want to decrease the number of obese people in the US, there are many better ways to accomplish that. One way to deflate the high obesity rates could be setting up institutions where anyone could come and receive free diet- and workout counselling. That is just one of many ideas to make things work. Let's be real, you can't pick out all obese people, and make them do something. This is not some health-holocaust.
Resolved :The U.S. government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.

Thank you for acceptingI am sorry for the untimely response, I have been extremely busyHowever, here I am, so I will first go over framework, then refute my opponents arguments, then strengthen my own.First, I assume they agree with the framework since they haven't talked aboutNow to refutationsFirst, they talk about how about 13 billion dollars is going to be dancing its way into the insurance companies bank. However, there are a number of flaws in you argument.First, you get a $414 number and use this for every PERSON, where the evidence uses this number for every FAMILY. This is a clear misuse of this evidence. Second, there is a major flaw in the mathematics. First, some people don't take these health premiums because they are too expensive. In fact, because of the increase in premiums, According to New York Times, 6 million people are paying the penalties of not having health insurance, because they can not afford the increases in the health premiums. In fact, Despite the mandate, people will remain uninsured. According to CATO and Congressional Research, Michael D. Tanner reported that in 2016, 30 million Americans will be uninsured. This completely knocks down the number my opponent gave. My opponent's Subpoint B seems nontopical as he doesn't understand this topic. This is about the individual mandate, not Obamacare or Health care. This is requiring all citizens to have health INSURANCE, and INSURANCE does not guarantee care. In fact, current insurance mandates INCREASE government spending increasing the debt. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the refundable health insurance tax credits and Medicaid expansion will increase the nation’s debt burden by $1.36 trillion in the first seven years that these provisions are fully implemented.Also, my opponent cites a wordpress, which is unreliable and should be disregarded.They also talk about jobsHowever, they forget that there is a huge number of 5.2 million jobs left. Lastly, they ask whether the standpoint that government shouldn't force people to buy health care is this from a legal standpoint or a moral standpoint?I would like to say it is both. Since the government is forcing this mandate, it is a horrible thing to force someone to do something since it violates the right to life from the declaration of Independence (the legal standpoint) and since the D of I is also a document about morality, it is also immoral to take someone's right to life (the moral standpoint)Hope that answers the questionThank youand please vote PRO
Resolved :The U.S. government should not require its citizens to have health insurance.

I'd like to start with the first issue you stated the effect the individual mandate has on jobs. Now let's begin with what the Individual mandate does it's a law that requires all citizens to buy health care and because of this more costumers means more people have to provide for those costumers it's actually basic math. There are currently 40 million uninsured in America let's assume every single one of them decide to get health care the average American according to http://news.ehealthinsurance.com... the average American family pays $414 a month now let's do the math that is an estimated $16,560,000,000 [ sixteen billion five hundred sixty million ] per month for the health care industry and let's accumulate your estimated loss of 3.5 billion that'd be 13060000000 { thirteen billion sixty million} Still a huge increase of net for insurance company who's dancing their way to the bank. Sub point B - Current mandates decreases Government spending on individuals. Currently America pays more money per person on health care then any other country in the world including countries that have insurance mandates. You may look at these graphs to see how much we America really pays for health care compared to other countries and there's a clear link between mandated countries and non mandated countries. http://pusz4frog.wordpress.com.... Yes the impact is clear - Thousands of jobs will be created because of insurance mandates South Korea who has an insurance mandate currently has an unemployment rate less then 4% seems it isn't effecting them much. There are six clear professions that will see a huge impact with an Insurance mandate http://www.foxbusiness.com... I'd also like to ask what do you mean the government shouldn't force people to buy health care is this from a legal standpoint or a moral standpoint?
Samurai>Viking

If a samurai army were to clash with a viking army, the samurai may very likely win, but as stated before, they were from different time periods and this has to be compensated for. If they had equal technology (katana crafting was definitely superior to the axes and daggers employed by the vikings) and equal battle tactics research (the samurai had hundreds of years more to perfect their combat strategies), then the vikings would definitely come out on top. They were not bound by a ridiculous "code of honor" and would do whatever it takes to win. And, I must point out, you've made a huge blunder here. Sun Tzu was a Chinaman born over 700 years before samurai came into power in Japan and is completely unrelated to samurai. Yes, there were other good works written by samurai (The Book of Five Rings by Miyamoto Musashi comes to mind) but I think that all in all, if you look at what it boils down to, the vikings were more effective and influential in their time period than the samurai were in theirs. Thanks for the good debate, DrAcula, even though it looks like you've unfortunately closed your account.
Samurai>Viking

Adrian Peterson was a small joke. Moving on to my actual argument. Samurai are faster. They are more tactical, and would win in a open battle, and probably a close quarters one. They wouldn't allow themselves to be surrounded, because one would most likely not be traveling alone, and they would realize if they were about to be surrounded. On the subject of The Last Samurai, yeah, another joke, but it also show just how smart they were. They could create a strategy like that *cyber snap*. That's the big factor, is that Samurai strategies (Sun Tzu's were like this) go on through time, where the Vikings were good at one time in history, but aren't really good for anything now.
Samurai>Viking

The samurai are definitely not greater than the vikings. These "thug-like" Norsemen you speak of conquered and explored far more than any samurai could ever hope to achieve. England, Ireland, Scotland, parts of Russia, Greenland, and even North America were visited by the Scandinavians. Are Samurai really better tacticians? Perhaps so. They lived in a time where combat strategies had been more perfected, but I think given the time discrepency, the combat effectiveness ratio is right about even. The vikings were excellent in combat for their time, great raiders, and often victorious with their invasions. If a samurai were to fight a viking in a one on one fight, I'm sure the samurai would win. That fight would never happen though, since vikings always come in groups. The samurai would be surrounded from all sides and with nowhere to run he would be overwhelmed. "Vikings raze n' rape." This is a common view that most people have of the traditional vikings. However, in comparison to the other barbarous things that went on during their time, they were a very tame people. The majority of vikings weren't even warriors, but rather traders (albeit all men were required to own weapons, so even they would put up a fight were a samurai to try to attack them during a bartering session). Adrian Peterson is a football player for a team called the "Vikings" and not a true viking so I think the point about him not being able to weild a broadsword is moot. The fact that The Last Samurai is better than Pathfinder can be attributed to the scripts, directors, actors, etc. but not so much the actual cultures they are portraying. I'm sure if Akira Kurosawa decided to make a Viking movie it'd be pretty dang awesome.
Samurai>Viking

You know those short little Japanese guys with the swords and stuff that you can't see? Well, I believe that they beat the large, oafish, thug-like Norsemen that use claymores and what not. My reasoning: Samurai are better tacticians. Rather than run around and raze villages, their operations were precise. They employed use of more technical weapons, such as bows and short swords. Samurai would win in battle, because of their speed and precision. Samurai are respectful of everything, and honor themselves through sacrifice. Vikings raze n' rape. Adrian Peterson is to small to wield a broadsword. And: The last samurai>pathfinder. Samurai movies are better than viking movies. Plus, Seven Samurai inspired one of the greatest westerns of all time "The Magnificent Seven"